jump to last post 1-50 of 78 discussions (1192 posts)

"I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay"

  1. livelonger profile image91
    livelongerposted 4 years ago

    Quite a powerful story:
    http://www.danoah.com/2012/04/a-teens-b … e-gay.html

    I think this explains why so many of us are bothered by the "hate the sin, not the sinner" nonsense that many right-wing Christians trot out. Homosexuality is not an act, it's a fundamental orientation, and when you attack that orientation, very real people feel attacked.

    1. gaeparks profile image84
      gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard and as with all sins the Bible teaches that we are to hate the sin and not the sinner and that has nothing to do with being right-winged. The basic thing is that there is no proof that Homosexuality is genetic or anything of the like and the only definitive information shows that it is a lifestyle choice. And although those who are living that life style does so with constant feeling of being attacked, do not be misled to the fact that the Bible does not condone Homosexuality no more than it condones any other act that God does not like because sin is sin to God and He said that a man should not lay with another man as with a woman. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Hate the sin and not the sinner is simply a way of saying that we as Chrsitians MUST understand that Jesus brought grace into the world accross the board and as the Bible states in Romans 3:23...For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Therefore no one can judge anyone else. When we announce to the world that we are Christains...we are saying that the Word of God is our standard and not only the parts that we choose to like or follow. We all deal with sin and that does not mean we cannot still love those who sin. This thing about Homosexuality is a tricky one and there is nothing in the Bible where the act or lifestyle is condoned or even tollerated by God...but there are several texts where God shows that He does not condone those acts or that lifestyle. If one chooses to be then be...but own up to what it is. And when we are going to use God's Word as a defense, we must understand what God says about it also.

      1. jdflom profile image85
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        On the contrary, the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular. This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others. You may believe it's the right religion, but a Scientologist believes that his is the right one, an Islamist believes theirs is the right one and an atheist believes there is no god. All these people and more live within the same nation. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, so if you want to live in America, you can't be forcing people to be a particular religion, just like you shouldn't be denying gays the rights that everyone else has.

        Personally knowing several gay people, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they were born that way. It's not a choice, just like heterosexuality is not a choice for you. No one would choose to be unaccepted, ridiculed, belittled and hated, which is what often happens to people who come out as gay.

        There are many things in your bible that are picked and chosen as to what is right and wrong. It's been stated many times before, so choosing to single out gay people and hurt them, deny their rights, ridicule them or what have you isn't very christian-like.

        The sooner you accept the fact that some people are gay and that's normal, the less bigoted you will be. If it really affects you, you might need to take a long hard look at yourself and meditate on it because there is absolutely nothing wrong with their lifestyle.

        1. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I NEVER said that there is anything wrong with their lifestyle i said that first there is no proof that it is genetic and therefore that people are born with the orientation and secondly i said that God does not condone the lifestyle just ike He does not condone murder, lies, adultry, stealing gossip or anyting of the like. But the issue is to hate the sin and not the sinner and therefore  my statement spoke to loving everyone no matter their ifestyle. Finally and most importantly I said that the Bibe and the Word of God must be the standard for Christians but do not be fooled as the Bible also says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and therefore we will at some point get to that 100% you spoke of...just not yet. I NEVER said anything about denying the rigts of anyone or any of that stuff you said...and I am no bigot but then even you has the right to your opinion...all good with me. But as Isaiah said...choose whom this day you will serve, but as for me and my house...we shall serve the Lord. And i thank Him every day for His renewed grace that He renders to me insoite of my sins every day...

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, to answer your first response, It has been linked to genetics. Here's an article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de … netics-usa

            Please don't lump in homosexuality with murder, lies, adultery, stealing or gossip -- all of those can or will hurt someone else in some manner, homosexuality does not. Just like being having blonde hair or having freckles doesn't hurt anyone.

            I'm glad you revised your statement, because initially you did say that the Bible and the Word of god must be a standard, now I see you said a Christian standard. That's fine, however I am sure some Christians might disagree with your interpretation. Look at Kebennett1's response below -- she is a Christian, but has no hatred toward homosexuality or the lifestyle.

            We will never get to that 100% because no one has the same interpretation. And, as long as there is lack of proof or evidence that god exists, there will always be logic driven atheists.

            You may claim you are not a bigot because you say it it's god who doesn't condone the lifestyles, but the fact that you come on here essentially using "god's word" as a scapegoat, you are still condemning them with your words and that still makes you a bigot.

            If you want the definition of a bigot here you go: "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race." That sums you up from what I can tell. I'm sure you will disagree, but that is definitely what I see in you from your posts. For you to hide behind your interpretation of the word of god seems cowardly at best. Essentially, they are your words.

            As an atheist, I am very tolerant of religious ideas that are different than my own; in fact I am very much a proponent for the freedom of religion in America. I never tell people they are wrong about their religious choices, but I will point out and speak up against bigotry, bullying and hypocrisy when I see it because it is hurtful and demeaning to other people.

            Lastly, I don't know why you would have any capacity for hate; I sure don't; but your words were to hate the sin, not the sinner -- which means you have hatred in you? That's too bad if that is true.

            1. Amanda Roddy profile image76
              Amanda Roddyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Just because someone disagrees with  a lifestyle a majority of Americac agrees with  is not meaning bigotry. Given the definition of bigot "'One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.", it can apply to both sides of the issue.  It is not one-sided. There are those who can't tolerate any religion but no one is calling them bigoted.. just saying

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do the majority of Americans agree with homosexuality? I don't know, perhaps you can give evidence. I don't think the issue here is not tolerating any religion, but some from the religious camp not tolerating same-sex relationships. Just saying.

                1. chinedu eke profile image60
                  chinedu ekeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  i do not think is ethical for people of the same sex to get married,under any circumstance,because i feel it is wrong biblically or morally.if a particular religion now deems it worthy to allow people of the same sex to get married,i would say n u shld think about it. same sex relationships or marriage is psychologically ill.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It is those people who make unfounded assertions like this and claim their truth as the absolute truth, the psychologically ill people.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    On what basis do you claim that two consenting adults, who are in love, and want to make the ultimate commitment that is marriage, psychologically ill? Are you some form of qualified behaviourist, psychologist perhaps. Or maybe you're a psychiatrist? Where is the evidence for your claim? Or is that just your unqualified opinion?

                  3. 60
                    LeShawnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Religion is a homosexual's worst nightmare.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Again I hear that expression "lifestyle," Amanda.  It's such a glib term.  What on earth do you mean by it?  Have you any idea what you are talking about?
                It sounds to me like you have picked up on talk you have heard from your pastor, or minister, or zealots of your congregation.  People can spout stuff of which they are totally ignorant.... just biased and ill-informed.

              3. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First off, jonnycomelately +1 and Hollie Thomas +1 smile

                Amanda, I haven't seen the topic of not tolerating religion bring brought in. For me personally, if you read what I said, I am all for freedom of religion. Not sure how much more tolerable it can get since I am an atheist.

                If standing up against bigots for their bigotry makes me a bigot, as you suggested, then I guess I'm a bigot against bigots and bigotry.

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Bigots? There are no bigots. We have freedom of religion in America. A good lawyer could get you damages for hate speech if you demean someone for their beliefs. Even an atheist is free of religion, if they so chose. No one can make that determination for you around here.

                  We make the determination to be good neighbors. That is what makes America great . . . good neighbors.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Just a small point. Bigots don't make good neighbors and hating people because of color, sex or sexual orientation (whether you think it cosmically approved, or not) is bigotry.

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular."
          That's a little tricky, because I don't beleive that I should have to wear a seat belt if I don't want to (I do wear one always,) but the standard is still that I must. The number of people who believe in something is really not a good litmus test for whether it's true. For instance, although many people do believe gay people are born that way, many don't. By your own logic we can't accept the possibility that they are because not 100% of the population believes that.

          "This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others." - But then what is the standard based on?

          "You may believe it's the right religion, but a Scientologist believes that his is the right one, an Islamist believes theirs is the right one and an atheist believes there is no god. All these people and more live within the same nation. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, so if you want to live in America, you can't be forcing people to be a particular religion, just like you shouldn't be denying gays the rights that everyone else has." - That's well said, but does freedom of religion mean freedom from religion? There are people who believe that their freedom gives them the right to tell me to shut up, based on whether they like what I have to say. And I mean backed by force of law with incarceration as the penalty. Granted, that's not a majority of people, or even close, but they do exist.

          "Personally knowing several gay people, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they were born that way. It's not a choice, just like heterosexuality is not a choice for you. No one would choose to be unaccepted, ridiculed, belittled and hated, which is what often happens to people who come out as gay." I've known several gay people, and it's never really occurred to me that they were "trained" to be gay. But whether they chose it or not, Jesus is still Jesus. Gay people should not suffer persecution simply because they're gay, it's not right. But that goes for other people as well. I'm not gay but I certainly know what it's like to be picked on and bullied (and no, not because of my Christianity.)

          "There are many things in your bible that are picked and chosen as to what is right and wrong. It's been stated many times before, so choosing to single out gay people and hurt them, deny their rights, ridicule them or what have you isn't very christian-like."
          It's a sad truth that people do pick and choose what they want the Bible to say. Jesus invites us all to the party. But He makes pretty clear that certain things are expected.

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Chris Neal:

            Seat belt laws are for safety and not backed by religious beliefs. Besides, even if they were, that doesn't affect someone's freedoms and it isn't a form of bigotry. I don't think that's an equal comparison... But that's just my opinion.

            Whether they were born that way or not, it shouldn't matter. They are still people and deserve equality. That is merely my opinion, though.

            The standard, as it would appear, is pretty much based on laws that have been written up, voted upon and passed. Most laws are fairly common sense. A lot of laws are for some kind of public safety. And when something new comes up, there are discussions, debates, think tanks, voting and all sorts of ways to figure out how to regulate it if needed. Some laws need trial and error as new things come into play; for example, seat belts didn't used to be mandatory until they realized people were more likely to survive an accident with them on. Like yourself, I don't always agree with every regulation, but as long as they don't infringe on civil liberties, I will understand and accept them.

            I can only speak for myself and even though I'm an atheist, I would fight tooth and nail to make sure you have freedom of religion to believe what you felt was right for you. Freedom of religion is part of our constitution in America and I support it fully.

            I don't think it's right for Christians to get bullied either; I'm not a fan of making anyone feel bad.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you. Let me repeat that I've never been bullied on account of my faith. That day may come, but it hasn't yet.

              Everybody is a special individual made in the image of God.

              What seems like common sense to us can seem entirely different in other parts of the world. You'd be surprised how many basic ideas about what is right and wrong come from past and present religious convictions.

              It was nice talking to you!

              1. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You as well.

          2. SirNick profile image73
            SirNickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ""the word of god cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not believe in god or your god in particular."
            That's a little tricky, because I don't beleive that I should have to wear a seat belt if I don't want to (I do wear one always,) but the standard is still that I must. The number of people who believe in something is really not a good litmus test for whether it's true. For instance, although many people do believe gay people are born that way, many don't. By your own logic we can't accept the possibility that they are because not 100% of the population believes that.

            "This is why we have rules and regulations and a police force, because while we do need a standard, it cannot be based on one religion out of so many others." - But then what is the standard based on? "

            In a word - democracy.  It is the ability of the laws to change, and people to change them, that marks it above faith based teachings.

            With religion there is no changing what is said, word of god is word of god (no matter what modern slant is put on them).  But by law if someone thinks a law is wrong they can vote for someone that will change it - or they can run for office themselves and if they get suitable support for this law they see as unjust then enough people will vote them in that they can change the law themselves.

            Checks and balances, the ability to change, to adapt.  All important marks of modern democracy and something that allows us to use it to run our lives even if we dont agree with all of it, when religious doctrine would demand far more faith and persecution of those not of the faith

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You say several good things that I don't disagree with. You also say several things that I do. Rather than go point by point, let's get straight to the underlying philosophy.

              Democracy is a good man made system and I think it's the best one available on Earth, but there has to be a transcendant reality, an objective standard for "right" and "wrong." If not, then literally anything becomes permissible, provided you can get enough people to go along with it. You may or may not be familiar with the example of the deserted island for the flaws in democracy. Four healthy, attractive young people are marooned on an island in the middle of the Pacific. They know they need to get organized in order to survive, and being good Western kids they opt for a democracy in order to vote on priorities and what to do about them. Did I mention that there are three healthy young men? Assuming for this example that they're all straight, they decide that one of their main priorities is, well, I think you can guess. The young woman is definitely not with it, but since it's a democracy they take a vote and voila! In one fell swoop we have institutionalized, legal and democratic rape, slavery and enforced prostitution. Ah, the wonders of democracy!

              Now, I do not think this is axiomatic, that you have democracy and then you institutionalize bad things. But it is true that, at least until relatively recently, it has been faith-based groups, usually Christian, who drove the good change. End to slavery was largely (though not completely) advocated by Christians. Yeah, slavers used the Bible to their own ends but the often overlooked fact is that most abolitionists also were Christians and quoted the Bible even more (and understood it better!)

              Another real life example: The Nuremberg Trials. Nobody claimed that Nazi Germany was a democracy (except possibly for Hitler, who also was known to lie every now and again!) but when it came time to try the Nazi leaders who were still alive after WWII, they all claimed that they couldn't be prosecuted because they were simply following the laws of their own country. This was a real problem because, except for Russia, the other three powers on the board of judges couldn't figure out what it do. It was finally the Americans who said, "No, there must be some transcendant idea of right and wrong, or else not only can we not prosecute the Nazis but we can't really prosecute anybody ever again." That transcendant idea of right and wrong was based on the Bible.

              I believe in democracy and I believe in checks and balances. But they also don't always work. The government constantly wants to assert its "right" to control how we live "for our own good," and it doesn't matter whether you're a suite-and-tie fundamentalist or a drugged-out pinko hippy, there's always something that you can find in that class.

              1. SirNick profile image73
                SirNickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A broken example at work.  It relies on

                1)  people to be so self serving as to agree to evil
                2) a very obvious example taken to an extreme (I think I read you arguing against that elsewhere).

                Let us look at a more useful point.  The Nazi's (we'll ignore that much publicized law of the Internet for a moment).  They came to power, but not exactly on a wave of publicity but on a broken democratic model (which the allies were using as a test) based on impossible conditions put on Germany by the allies.

                Could certain Nazi's argue following orders?  Yes.  Could a 'higher' moral point still be claimed by the allies without referring to God?  Yes.  Basic human rights don't need a higher power, and basic right and wrong doesn't either.  If a Government is contravening human rights, and people try claiming following orders, then we now have mechanisms in place.

                There is NO need to refer to a higher power.  At the time Christianity was still a central, if waning, force, so was still to be claimed to.  I have no doubts we would reach the same conclusions now, without any idea of reaching to a higher moral authority other than those set by humans.

                Is our society based on teh bible?  Yes.  But let's not make that because of some inherent good, but on the fact that Christianity destroyed, raped and pillaged all major resistances to it all over the world.  YES that was often based off of mortal greed, not Christian teachings, but it doesn't stop it being any less true.  If you want to accept that what we have is based off of Christian teachings in the past, you HAVE to accept the bad with the good - that Christians destroyed the teachings of just about every religion, usually with malicious intent. 

                Abolitionists being Christian, Slavers being Christian.  Daft arguments.  OF COURSE THEY WERE!  Sorry to shout, and it's not aimed at you, but at people who keep trying to argue these points.   Christianity as THE major religion in our historical records for thousands of years.  Once the West came to power of the New World they were the ones that could choose, or not choose, slavery.  It was Christian teaching that allowed slavery, and Christian teaching that abolished it.

                As ever the idea of Christian morality leading the country is one that is abhorrent to me.  Not because I am an atheist, I am, and not because I am against Christian morality as it (mostly) stands, I'm not.  But because we have seen so many examples of Christian teachings being twisted to suit an individuals needs, and because religion so often doesn't rely so much on choice as it does of teaching - people will slavishly follow that example.

                We can bring up one or two examples of democracy being wrong.  But so often these are flawed models of what democracy amongst the leading nations is.  However history has shown us again and again that placing morality and decision making in religion will bring conflict, witch hunting and individual power seeking.

                Democracy is very flawed, but central to democracy and capitalism is the concept that humans are flawed and power seeking.  It works in spite of, and often because of, that fact.  But religions aims are too lofty, and so too easily twisted by those that seek power for themselves.  They expect the best in people and are so often let down.

                I'll take the practical example that works, that relies on people as they are, that can put in place moral rights without claims to higher authorities, that aren;t responsible for so many atrocities.  The system that has worked despite everything, rather than the one with such a long history of not working.

                I like the goals of religion to put morality in place, but it should NEVER be the guide.  It's too easily twisted to individuals needs.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, the example is whole and sound. I went to pains to make clear that I don't think it axiomatic that this will happen, but in the absence of some greater standard of right and wrong it could, which segues nicely into...



                  A useful point indeed. Your history is not wrong, but it's incomplete. The racial theories that Hitler embraced and magnified were not unique to the Nazis or even Germany. They were, sometimes in different forms, among even the intellectual elites in both Europe and America. Certainly not all Germans subscribed to everything that Hitler espoused, Hitler knew that. He certainly didn't put forth everything he personally believed. But enough people believed enough of the same things he did that they were willing to go along. In fact Nazi Germany is the perfect example of why a higher moral power DOES need to be invoked because it illustrates perfectly how "basic right and wrong" become whatever someone says it does when there's no higher authority. Very Nietzsche to be sure, but I've known many, many people who believe exactly that.



                  History argues exactly the opposite. Certainly the Church did many nasty, evil things and I have never shrunk from the history of it. But you don't go back far enough. At it's beginning, Christianity actually served as a tempering force, and it's true that in many ways the worst thing to ever happen to it was to become a political force. The men who did the worst things were often the least religious and certainly the least theological. And since the world embraced "Enlightenment," things have only become worse. Nietzsche himself predicted the 20th Century would be the bloodiest in history, and he was right.



                  Inherent good is the only reason to make Christianity the basis of anything. Otherwise it's a waste of time and energy. I do accept the badwith  the good, reference my previous comment. 



                  I wrote a Hub about that. Christian teaching did not allow slavery, men just chose it anyway and then justified it as best they could. The argument that since Christianity was the major religion becomes a rather facile basis to ignore the debate about whether it is true.



                  You're right, it does often get twisted. What always floors me about that argument is the implication that only religion would have that effect. Communism, anti-communism, fascism, atheism, humanism, all these things and more have been twisted by people with devastating effect. That is taking the bad with the good.



                  True. It's also showed us again and again tht placing morality and decision making in every other political form has lead to the same thing.



                  The American Experiment in democracy understood that men are flawed. It relied on Christianity to provide the moral impetus that no government can give. I went to great pains to make clear that I think democracy is the best government devised by men and that there should be democracy everywhere. I like democracy and don't want to see it go away. But human beings need more.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I can't agree with this Chris.  It sounds great on paper, but determining that everyone, everywhere must abide by one set of principles takes away all choice. That leads to Dictatorship.  This is also why we don't ALL have to be christians.  There is more than one legitimate path.



                If one of those guys was healthy heterosexual, you have the beginnings of a great community, especially if the other two guys are gay and get on very well together.  They can all go off hunting and support the woman as she becomes a mother.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  God gave everyone unique personalities. Nothing says we must be clones. But if there is God and Jesus did die for our sins, then no, there are not multiple legitimate paths. Obviously everyone doesn't think those two points are true, and I have claimed often that I have "met" God so I often ask myself, Which will I believe, God or men? I actually tried to stop being a Christian once, and God did not let me alone.



                  The example was supposed to be three healthy men and one healthy woman, all straight and all young. I wrote it that way but for some reason that part didn't make it in. If two of the guys were gay, the point would fall apart. And let me stress that I don't necessarily think that democracy causes those sorts of situations, but that devoid of an objective right and wrong, those kinds of things become more likely. Think "Lord of the Flies."

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you were to say "I believe that The spirit, the soul, goes on forever and when the physical body dies it will spend eternity either with or without God," then no one, yours truly included, can disagree with you. 

                    Your statement that you have "met God," is true for you.  It is totally presumptuous of you to assume then that your experience must be brought to reality for everyone else.  THIS Sir, is the root cause of so much strife in the world.... intolerance of the other person's point of view and the presumption that "I have the right way, you don't."

                    The christian way, especially the dogmatic American christian way, is the BIG BIG PROBLEM for this world.  I know you are basically a good man, Chris.  You have your heart in the right place.  You are warm and friendly with people and I appreciate that.  But the dogma is the downfall.  IMHO.

              3. 60
                LeShawnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There HAS to be an objective standard for right and wrong?  One of many good reasons why MEN made up the stories in the bible over the millenia.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How so? I'm not following the logic....

        3. verizon-hurts-sip profile image59
          verizon-hurts-sipposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "[X] cannot be the standard because 100% of the population does not [agree]" -- jdflom


          (1)
          On what basis can you assert what can- or cannot be the standard?

          (2)
          If it is consent alone on which premises do 100% of the population agree?

          (3)
          Catching a glimmer of your self refuting position yet?

          1. SirNick profile image73
            SirNickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Generally the standard is that which is set.  This usually means by Government and Police.  The Government doesn't need 100% approval, it simply needs to be elected, which gives it a 'mandate from the people'.

            If people feel strongly about a position they can run for election themselves, and if enough people feel strongly then they get elected, and consequently can change the standards being set.

            Religion setting the standard is VERY different, as it is not an electable in the more traditional sense, requires people to sign up that specific way of thinking and requires often obtuse interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago.

            Thankfully we're not in that position, as expecting people to adhere to a religious tome for standards set now, especially if they did not believe, would be ludicrous. 

            Whilst there is no way of guaranteeing 100% acceptance, a government elected on a democratic principle gives us the best workable option vs a religious text that even people who use it as a basis of their religion can't agree on (and that has caused numerous wars, deaths, inhumanities, etc over the centuries).

            1. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sir Nick, I suggest then, on the basis of your post here, that it could boil down to "democratic" principles. 

              If an elected government was instated on the basis of a "free," "knowledgeable," "non-coerced" electorate; and the ability to stand for election did not depend upon the candidate being monetarily rich; and every candidate professed and practised fairness and honesty; and it was, in short, a "level playing field," --- then you could well consider such a government as democratic.

              However, where all or most of the above are absent, it cannot be regarded as democratic.  It is much more likely to be a Plutocracy of rich business club members who get into power.  Then, sitting behind closed doors, they can make any laws they like, regardless of the will of the people.

              If those "elected" persons find they can manipulate the electorate's thinking, especially in regard to religious/sexual matters, they will use these powers to corrupt the system.  Plant media owners amongst the elected, and you have the Big Brother syndrome set in.

              We all thought that "1984" was about the U.S.S.R.

              1. SirNick profile image73
                SirNickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "We get the government we deserve".

                If the government found themselves severely out of kilter with public thinking, and the other major parties/party (depending on your nation) were also so out of kilter, then you would soon find a new party emerge that was better thinking

                Also remember that parties will often bend to the prevailing winds to get power, which comes back to the "we get the government we deserve" quote.  If there is a shift in morals in the general populace then you can bet pennies to the pound that our political parties will follow suit.

                There is lag, and there is a certain amount of latitude given that parties also bow to financial pressures.  But for the most part large uprising of belief in a certain moral will certainly over turn any one donor, no matter how large.

                We can debate how democratic the governments are (and I certainly agree with you to a degree), but the points I made, and am trying to make here, is that the system is still more viable as a way of judging publicly accepted morality than any text that was written thousands of years ago and that any cross section of it's believers will show dramatic differences in.  We can accept differences in a populace under a government...but religions often struggle with the concept of different understandings (protestant vs catholicsm for instance).  What a government does is provide strict, understandable lines in the sand.  What religion does is provide strict lines in the sand, but then someone else reads it and makes different lines, and someone else yet more lines - and then there is those that refuse to believe at all...

                Government as a standard setter is a far better system than relying on a religion to define morality

                1. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What you say here makes much sense,  which brings to mind ??

                    Do YA think that, as the story goes; the apearance of God to Abraham was the first ever established governmental institution?
                    Until then the bigest and badest person in the group made all the rules.
                    So; it was necessary for this new institution to follow previous standards to some extent or the populus would have had no understanding of the concept at all.

                    Didn't contimplate this comment more than a few seconds,  just a thought that popped into my head while reading your post.

      2. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hmm...I'm not so sure that there's no "proof" as you say, that this is not a natural thing that people cannot choose. I know a lot of people who are gay and have tried to change that their entire lives. They actually want to be straight but simply don't have a preference for the other sex. There has been a lot of scientific research into the hormones and other chemicals in our bodies which influence sexual orientation, suggesting that it may possibly be genetic or a way in which people are born.
          I'm both straight and a Christian, but I think it's best to think twice before we judge...

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

          According to gay people I know, they simply are not attracted to people of the opposite sex just as I am not attracted to a particular woman that another man sees as a absolute hottie. They cannot change who they are attracted to anymore than I can. Being gay for them is not a lifestyle choice.

          The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality is conspicuous by its absence. We don't have to agree with Paul as he wasn't an apostle and we are not members of his Church.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
            AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I wasn't even aware that Paul referenced homosexuality. I thought it was only mentioned rather vaguely in the OT. Hmm...guess that shows how much I read my Bible...

        2. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you choose to take my stance as judgement...I said that the Word of God must be our standard if we are Christains. That is truth. And until I see or read the proof to the same...then i can only go by what i know...and roof is proof. And there is none.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
            AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say you were judging. I was just making a comment in general. As far as proof goes, it depends on how you see the evidence, I guess. For some, the scientific research done thus far is sufficient proof. For others, it is not.

      3. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This is a very disturbing response to homosexuality. We as a society do not get our morality from the bible nor should we. Do you really want the moral fibre of a 2000 year old society? The bible condones rape, murder and slavery. Sure you can pick and choose which versus you adhere to, but if you take the bible as the word of god you have to take it all.
        I find it fascinating that in the year 2012 we still have people thinking homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Does it sound like the kid in the story chose his lifestyle? Did you choose your heterosexual lifestyle? You are hating because of what you read in an old book. Try thinking for yourself.

        1. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh but I do think for myself. And the Word of God is not based on some 2000 year old society...it is dynamic and very relevant to today. There is not a single place in the Bible that condones rape, murder, or slavery. Please go and read a BIble and do so with the assistance of someone who understands what it says before condeming what the Bible says. Your very statemenst show that you probably have never read a Bible and therefore you are not thinking for yourself. Educate yourself beofre you comment on a subject...Please.

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think Rad Man is absolutely correct.

            Not trying to sound condescending here, just stating what I see. If you thought for yourself, you wouldn't take a man made bible as the word of god and strictly adhere to it. You would read it and then develop your own interpretations and ideas. The fact that you keep pointing back to the bible and saying god hates sins and what not leads me to believe that you aren't critically thinking for yourself.

            1. gaeparks profile image84
              gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are not being condescending...you are actually clueless...but that is ok too. I do think for my self and I do the research that leads me to know that the Bible is not man made. And critical thinking and faith go hand in hand.

              1. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nice to see you go right to personal attacks. Hope that helps you in life.

              2. 60
                LeShawnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The bible is not manmade?  Most of the authors are unknown, but it's "known" they were inspired by God?  Please - let's be realistic.

                If you insist on believing in talking snakes and burning bushes that speak, fine - but don't expect everyone else to believe exactly as you do.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree, let's be realistic.

                  The Bible is written by men, that is not denied. But that God inspired these men is the point. And there are many prophecies that came true, such as Daniel's vision.

                  It's not all about the burning bush!

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh but it does condone rape, slavery and murder.

            Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
            If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

            If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.

            Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NLT
            But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.

            Exodus 21:15 NKJV
            And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

            See this link for much more.
            http://rad-man.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-g … -the-Bible

            Perhaps you should educate yourself on what the bible says and what homosexuality is.

            1. gaeparks profile image84
              gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rad-man...anyone can go cut and paste some text out of a Bible. Your words and thought reveal your lack of understanding of the same. I know what the Bible says and why it said what it did. and cutting a piece out and using it as a standard is inerrancy. And I am well aware of what homosexuality is. When I said to educate yourself...i meant the exhaustive study of the Bible in the context of the written eords and not just to go find some text and cut and paste without understanding...bjut then if that is your world then live it like you want to...I am no Bible novice...take the same text and read farther so you might understand what it says and what part God plays in the text you pasted for your purpose of argument...go gain understanding of Apologetics and you will understand context. Much luv man.

              1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
                Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So rape, slavery and murder are ok in certain contexts?

                That's odd because I always thought they were wrong in any context.

                Seems to me like the bible does condone these things and you are refusing to accept it because you dont like what it says and you will go to any length to attempt to defend your belief to the contrary of what the bible actually says.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, but you can cut and past test out of the bible and that's okay. Think critically. I don't find anything about the male form sexually attractive and I would assume you don't either. Ask yourself, why would one choose a homosexual lifestyle if one was like me and I assume you. I use the word assume because many a fundamentalist makes the journey to the other side and when is caught asked for forgiveness.
                What I'm trying to say is don't judge people on what a 2000 year old book says. The does promote slavery, murder and rape. This you choose not to except because of modern day ethics. You should apply your modern day ethics to you view of homosexuality as well.
                The USA held on to slavery for so long because of the words in the bible. Those words were used to enslave people and the biblical words you use against homosexuality are no different.
                Why care?

                1. jdflom profile image85
                  jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                2. gaeparks profile image84
                  gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Case in point Rad-man...misguided men with inaccurate interpretations of the Bible misused the Word of God to hold unto a madness called slavery for as long as they did because if they did not use the Bible they would have found another reason to do so because they were evil and misguided...

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Case in point gaeparks...misguided men with inaccurate interpretations of the Bible misused the Word of God to hold unto a madness called "crusade against homosexuality" for as long as they did because if they did not use the Bible they would have found another reason to do so because they were evil and misguided...

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Radman, I read the Hub, and I gotta say;

              A) I was taken aback at your anger. You seemed like a fairly reasonable man when I was talking to you in other forums. You seem quite angry in that Hub and on this forum.

              B) I was a little surprised that someone who is as smart as you seem to be and who has claimed to actually know the Bible would make the academic errors you've made. To wit:
                 1) To quote the OT out of context is dishonest. The rules God gave to the Jews 5000 years ago are exactly that. They were not the rules given to t he Babylonians, the Sumerians or the Egyptians. At that time, if you wanted to follow the true God you converted became an Israeli. And Jesus clarified which ones apply and how they apply to other people at other times.
                 2) Again, to quote the OT out of context is dishonest. To state unequivocally that everything reported in the Bible was reported as good and something that we should emulate is only possible if either you don't read the Bible very carefully or if you read it having already made up your mind and you're simply looking for whatever you can use to "support your argument." The Bible does NOT say that slavery, murder, incest or really even sleeping with someone you're not married to is okay. But you can take texts which, if that's all you know, seem to support the contention that it does.

              You assert in your Hub that Jesus didn't say anything about slavery. Come again? Did you forget that Jesus was walking the earth at a time when the entire nation of Israel was basically enslaved by the Roman Empire. Did you forget that most of His followers wanted to crown Him king of Israel and have Him lead an armed insurrection? Everything he said was about slavery, it's just that the slavery He was interested in ending was human slavery to sin!

              Cut and paste texts, also sometimes called "Proof Texting," has two inherent problems. 1) It doesn't take any special skill or great intelligence to do it. Open the book, throw a rock, you'll probably find a verse that on it's face and devoid of context seems to say that something we think is horrible is actually okay. 2) Since proof texting doesn't require any great intelligence, people who actually do have high IQ's (and here I'm specifically talking about Dawkins, but others also qualify,) seem to feel that they have to add passion since they can't contribute scholarship. Passion is not bad in and of itself, but if you resort to basically the same kind of behavior you spend so much passion decrying on the other side, then why should I believe you're right any more than you believe me?

              One more thing, although it's a bit more long-range history, the fact is that Western law in general and American law specifically is mored in Biblical ethics. That does not mean that every law comes straight out of the Bible, America is not a theocracy and is not going to be. The argument could be made (and I would make it) that American culture and law are moving farther away from Biblical ethics, but the foundation is still in the Bible. And the dirty little secret of "Enlightenment" thinking is that so many of the lofty ideas were taken from Christian thinking and had the religious language stripped out.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for reading Chris, I obviously can't compete with your knowledge of the bible, nor would I want to. Knowledge of the bible however does not make one right or wrong with regards to one's personal belief.
                You have kind of make my point for me though Chris, my point is try to show people that you can't take snippets out the bible and use them against anyone. You seem to be telling me I shouldn't do that, and I agree. Slavery existed in the USA for far to long because of someones interpretation. Fundamental Christianity attempts to block the freedom of equality of gays based on their interpretation of the bible. Yes this does anger me and I'm not even gay nor do I have gay children. I'm repressing not suppressing that anger so I can look at the situation objectively. I'm not a women either but I'm upset at the lack of equality in the Catholic Church. Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?"
                  As any good makeup artist will tell you, it's not what you got, it's what you do with it. If your knowledge leads to truth, or lets you show others truth (and this is not just about the Bible,) then you're "right." If not, then you're "wrong."

                  Slavery existed for far too long in the USA, to be sure. Those who wanted to maintain it did unquestionably quote the Bible and claim Christianity. Ironically, so did those who wanted to abolish it. And this argument actually went on from the very founding of the country. Those who used the Bible to "support" slavery had a habit of picking out a few verses and not taking the entire book into account.

                  I've never hidden who I am or what I beleive or why. So I think you will believe I'm being honest when I tell you that I don't think being gay is an automatic disqualification for salvation. But the New Testament has a long list of actions (including theft and lying) which, if being actively engaged in, will keep you out of Heaven.

                  Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say. I study the Bible and the history thereof and its effect on history because that is the personality and the interests God has given me. I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known.

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say."

                    It seems as though you believe it to be so, however.


                    "I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known."

                    And yet when good arguments are being presented to you (concerning Hell and the like) you don't accept them because they don't line up with the truth that is already true for you... You seem to agree with scriptures that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of other Christians seem to also "believe" and don't accept new looks into the same scripture, that could very well be "true."

                    I love that you accept relativity, even if only to a degree. Imagine it on a significantly larger scale, and you'll get a glimpse of part of what it means to be human and the role that subjectivity truly plays in everyone's lives... Even those who feel themselves to objective or following objectivity, the religious and non-religious alike.

                2. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Does my knowledge of the bible make me right or wrong?"
                  As any good makeup artist will tell you, it's not what you got, it's what you do with it. If your knowledge leads to truth, or lets you show others truth (and this is not just about the Bible,) then you're "right." If not, then you're "wrong."

                  Slavery existed for far too long in the USA, to be sure. Those who wanted to maintain it did unquestionably quote the Bible and claim Christianity. Ironically, so did those who wanted to abolish it. And this argument actually went on from the very founding of the country. Those who used the Bible to "support" slavery had a habit of picking out a few verses and not taking the entire book into account.

                  I've never hidden who I am or what I beleive or why. So I think you will believe I'm being honest when I tell you that I don't think being gay is an automatic disqualification for salvation. But the New Testament has a long list of actions (including theft and lying) which, if being actively engaged in, will keep you out of Heaven.

                  Whether my knowledge of the Bible is superior to anyone else's or not is not for me to say. I study the Bible and the history thereof and its effect on history because that is the personality and the interests God has given me. I want to know the truth, not just what's true for me. There are things that can be true for some people and not for others, but there are overarching truths that need to be known.

      4. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Let me go on record as saying today: I LOVE PEOPLE...ALL PEOPLE! I HOLD NO HATRED FOR ANYONE I DO NOT HOLD HATRED FOR HOMOSEXUALS. People are people and sin is sin whatever what the sin is and God determines what is sin and we as people cannot pick and choose what He has determine to be so. We Christians are all mandated by God to love all people. We are mandated by God to not like sin...that means my sins, your sins...every sin..."for all have sinned". The term hate sin means that we are to detest or stay away from or avoid...that term is not built on hatred as in hatred for people hatred in the sense of the emotion.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Let's put aside Paul for a moment because he did not fulfill the requirements of an apostle as Peter gave us in acts; only Paul claimed Paul was an apostle; and we are not of his Church. So the only claim that his word was the word of God came from him and the Dark Ages Catholic Church who included his letters because they suited their theology.

          Now let's look to Jesus instead. He spoke about money, adultery, hypocrisy, and legalism, but never once homosexuality. Does that not strike you as rather odd?

          Let's pretend Paul was speaking his own opinions, much like pastors do today, and his letters were removed from the bible, how does your views on homosexuality change now?

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wait a minute. Peter did recognize Paul. He said what he wrote was scripture. People are hard on Paul. Don't forget he was the same guy who said, "Accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to pass judgement on his opinions."

            He also said, "Do not wrangle about words or controversial issues. It leads to the ruin of the hearers."

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What I'm trying to get at is that we blindly accept that Paul's words are scripture because a committee voted for him a couple hundred years later. I see no reason not to accept his teaching as simply expressions of his opinions as any preacher today. We don't have to agree with him, and we can disagree in good conscience. Jesus did not talk about homosexuality and we should defer to Jesus before Paul.

              1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, you are right. I can not think of a single instance of Jesus talking about homosexuality at all. Maybe it would not be out of line to assume that he invited homosexuals to his dinner parties. The religious leaders of the day were always getting bent because he was hanging out with the wrong kind of people. God would never do such a thing!

      5. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Like JDFLOM has written in reply to your post, I don't accept the premise that I have to accept the existence of a "god" in order to control my morality.  Certainly I don't accept that other humans are entitled to sit in judgment of me, simply on their own interpretation of the book.  I respect the fact that you are a pastor in a church and are required to adhere to a certain set of principles and understandings. 

        For me there is ample good sense obtained from intelligent consideration of life as I find it, in the time that I live, in relation to others of my peers and fellows.   Let me try to explain.  (I was trying to start a new Hub on this subject, but currently my Internet connection does not allow that.   So, hopefully this Comment, in the Thread, will allow my points to expand a little in the discussion.)

        This thread, like so many others on the topics of homosexuality and religion, will never progress beyond bias, argument and rhetoric.  Maybe it's time we all looked at the reasons sexuality in general is such a “hot topic.”  Why has it always been an area of human life so radically fraught with difficulty and conflict?

        Sex and sexuality, intimate relations, are and always have been one the strongest seats of emotions.  This is the way it's meant to be.  In order for the species to reproduce, it requires a lot of enjoyment to be promised during the “act.”  The “chase” is full of hormone fervour.  All the 5 senses come into play big-time, plus the mind and its psychology add up the excitement.   The dream and fantasy which are promised at the end of the chase spur us on, for both genders, regardless of specific orientation.  All this is very fine and gives huge zest for life whilst it lasts.

        Yet, once the goal is reached, conquest has been achieved, orgasm has brought a sense of relief, THEN there is the risk of breakdown.   Breakdown of the energy which preceded it; breakdown of the desires which were there in the fantasy; some new knowledge of the person you were seeking – like unpleasant smells, or habits, or demands which put you off.  The challenge has been won, so you don't need to appeal quite so much now.   What does all this add up to?  You need to rebuild the relationship, on new bases, if you want it to continue.   That is going to take some time and a lot of effort on your own part.  Your partner will have to do his/her own bit of the work as well. 

        Thus, can you wonder that the whole subject of sex, whether it be “gay” or “straight,” has been so weighty in the history of our societies?   The various religions have used this potential conflict to control the communities in which they operate.   Akin to the politics of the time, control and management of people and their lives has been the main driving force of religion.   We see it operating just as much today.   We also see hypocrisy.   Even the pastors of churches fall down, because they have lied about their own desires and conflicts of passion.   

        So, I am recommending we drop the thorny subject of homo/hetero acceptance or rejection.  There can be no resolution until the majority of us look at the personal responsibility which is involved  in ANY intimate relationship.

        Let's get real.  Let's come down to earth!

      6. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said!

      7. anjegirl profile image60
        anjegirlposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Only a person who knows absolutely nothing about the Bible would make the statements you are making---every preacher, every rabbi, every priest and every muslim KNOWS that the King James Version of the Bible could not possibly be the WORD OF GOD---not possible---God had nothing to do with the writing of the Old Testament or the New Testament first of all----God did not write anything in the original versions of the bible and neither did Jesus---we have apostles and lawyers and fishermen and others who wrote the old and new testament versions of the bible and in neither one are there any writings from Jesus or from God----and even if they had written anything anywhere in any original versions of the bible history would have clearly documented that---so for you to say that God said this or felt this way about that is just ignorance of the facts----in addition, the KIng James Version of the Bible from which you quote is a very CHANGED version of the ORIGINAL versions and anyone who studies the history of the KJV knows this and would feel ridiculous quoting it's contents as fact---I don't often refer people to Wikipedia, but they have a very accurate accounting of ALL the many translations from language to language and all the editings,(opining) and rewrites from the original versions of the bible into the King James version of the bible and they will inform you as to the fact that 7 whole books were purposely omitted from the KJV and if you ever studied spanish, you must know that languages do not translate straight across ever and the english language has hundreds more words than many other languages which left a lot of room for adding and subtracting verses and books from the original versions of the bible

        And not only that, geneticists have known for decades that being gay is genetic--it is a simple matter of X and Y chromosomes and having more of one than the other---which is why gay men seldom grow very little or no facial or chest hair and which is why they want to play with dolls at the age of two or three and which is why they walk and talk like girls and which is why they can dress like women and noone knows they are not women and genetics is the reason why genetically gay women have huge hips and moustaches and why they always work in conventional men's jobs and never ever wear a dress and why they were called "tomboys" as kids for playing rougher than their brothers or for only playing with trucks and not dolls and it explains why most of them walk and talk like men---only a person who has never been around gay people would consider this anything other than genetic---this is the reason why lesbians fight like men and have more testosterone than men and why gay men don't have physical fights typically because like most girls they don't want to mess up their pretty faces---have you ever asked yourself how a person can be born a hermaphrodite??? with breasts and a penis---it's genetic and only genetic and has nothing to do with sinning---I died and went to Heaven and I can tell you first hand that God has nothing to do with our many reincarnations only we decide who and what we will be in the next lifetime and God expects us to live one life loving everyone who crosses our paths and until or unless we live a life in which we do this, we will continue to come back and do it again and again----Love is the only answer not the myths perpetuated by men and only by men in the KJV of the bible---study the whole bible and read the lost books and you will get it too

        1. Doc Snow profile image97
          Doc Snowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I saw a boy--a young man--from a religiously conservative Christian background going through the 'coming out' process.  Those of us who knew him at that time were very concerned that he would survive it.  One look at his face was enough to reveal that this was a soul undergoing tremendous suffering; the conflict between who he thought he was, who he was raised to be, and who really felt himself to be, was nearly fatal for him.

          And some speak of how 'homosexuality is a choice.'

          The young man did not choose his suffering, only how to respond.  Could he have chosen to remain celibate, and so 'sinless?'  Presumably.  But that would not have made him 'straight,' just abstemious.

          And, Scripture notwithstanding, I do not see how that would make him 'holier.'

          1. 0
            genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This happens all over the world. We all struggle with sin. However, we are not at liberty to go against the rules. God made a way of escape, Jesus (again by faith). We can take God our problem and he "covers" you with his mercy and begins a work within you to bring you in line. He promised. He knows we can't "be good" w/o him.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image95
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you take the scripture seriously when it says women should keep silent in matters of religion and let the men handle it, Genaea?  Very few of you christian ladies take much stock in these words supposedly written by your god.  Perhaps you are one of them?  I'll wager your Baptist preacher didn't dwell too long on this particular passage of scripture. 

                                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              1. 0
                genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, i believe that thatword was amended because so many me decided to deny the truth. Maybe not. Once Jesus came, a lot of things were changed, ie. under the law/ grace. The law has not changed, people are unfaithful. Women biblically spoke for God. Look  it up.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So god changed his mind again?  Yes, first it was forbidden and now it's okay.  Is there somewhere listing all of the stuff once wrong but now accepted in the latter part of the bible?  You know, sorta like amendments or something?  Oh, let me guess again.  "U gotta have faith becuz if UR nt livn rite ur prayers want b answerd"!  Am I close?  cool

                                                                  http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            2. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              genaea - your cop-out has again insulted the story which Doc Snow has written!  I know you do not mean to be insulting.  Yet your blinkered reaction to that story of a young teenager and his deep, deep problems with society's reaction to him, means you cannot face life without your narrow religious prop. 

              What the hell difference does it make to your life, and your perceived relationship with your god, if you drop the evangelism for just one moment, and JOIN with a fellow human being who is in trouble?  I'll tell you!  It would make you a REAL human being, instead of a religious hypocrite.  Where is the Love in your life?  It certainly ain't in your heart, so it must be in your head!

              1. 0
                genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Those of us indoctrinated folk cannot survive without God's words. Wea all struggle. The poor young man has no problem that cant be handled through This thing that i have (salvation). Try it.

                1. jdflom profile image85
                  jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, that response just seems even more insulting to the young man and to jonnycomelately. I think jonny said some pretty powerful words from the heart and you just dismiss him like that, refusing to even acknowledge his point of view. It seems kind of mean-spirited.

                  1. 0
                    genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    His point went acknowledged. I just cant say what he wishes. God can fix you, me , and the rest.

      8. Kebennett1 profile image61
        Kebennett1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am a Christian. I believe in GOD, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The one single thing taught over and over again in the Bible is that we are to love.....love......love! If hatred against homosexuals is being taught in a church, any church, then the leader of that church is not teaching the word of GOD. There are so many teens who have considered suicide (many have succeeded in taking their lives) rather than let their families and friends know that they are gay. Others have done this due to harassment. Parents who teach hatred in the home against homosexuals or racism are doing a disservice to their children and are not following GOD's word. We have all been created equal and each person needs love and respect. Hate crimes disgust me and unfortunately I see more and more people guilty of them. I always ask myself, what if it were my son or daughter and that truly is the question that people need to ask themselves. I love my children without putting limits on that love. Parents who can't say that do not deserve to be parents. God does not limit his love for me either and I can certainly extend that same kind of love to others.

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Beautifully said.

        2. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Please read my piece AGAIN...there is absolutely NOTHING about hating homosexuals or anyone else. My entire pece was and is about the unchanging and grace filled love of God. But as a Christian yu and I must rely on His Word as that standard for our lives and His Word doesnot condone homosexuality...period

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.

            I love everyone equally, irregardless of their choices.

            But God doesn't say keep sinning, it says turn away from all iniquity.

            I understand people have trials, but denying what God expects is not grace, it is rebellion.

            If one seeks God, then one has to come seeking God's will, and that is certainly not homosexuality. And the same goes for any sin.

            No one needs to hate ANYONE. EVERYONE needs love, period.

            But you can't expect forgiveness for a sin you won't confess...

            smile

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Lot of But's in there. " I love everyone equally, irregardless of their choices. But... No one needs to hate ANYONE. EVERYONE needs love, period. But...

              All these but's leave me to suspect you don't love everyone equally, that's just something you say to make you feel good about yourself before you say BUT...

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes. It's hard to give a child candy or a hug while they kick, scream, flail their arms and run in rebellion because they can't have the firecrackers..

                Suspect all you want, but you don't know anything about me.

                Your accusations are empty little fella, and I'm not the thread topic.

                Careful implying ugly slander on people.. It's wrong.

                I'm not a liar sir.

            2. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are "passing the buck" when you say "it's God's will." 

              It is HUMANS, ill-informed and biased-thinking humans, who make the judgement.  Yourself included.  So, when you stop using a book to support your beliefs and arguments, and instead get back down to earth, then we will all be happier neighours.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That "book" is all you will hear about from me.

                Go attempt to force other people to be silent.

                I'm not "passing" anything. If you aren't happy it's your own fault.

                Christ makes me happy. Be unhappy if you need be, I will always serve Him irregardless.

                Christ takes precedence. Period.

        3. prettydarkhorse profile image63
          prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I like that.

        4. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Kebennett1, yours is one of the most beautiful posts I have seen in HubPages.

          Thank you so much.

      9. lorlie6 profile image86
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As they should!  Gays are certainly loved as are all by God. 
        IMO.
        smile

      10. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ack....i haven't sinned......ever....i'm so sick of hearing about 'we, the sinners or whatever'...if you sin, by your definition...then deal with it....no book.....written by some sinner...will dictate what i do, what i think...who i am...f*** that...amen!...get a life......my 2 cents...big_smile

        1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
          WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You have sinned by anyone's definition and you know it. REPENT!

          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oMGRjk6ZsBk/ShWCAcvk_oI/AAAAAAAAEcE/z0gAdbAD8v4/s1600/sinners.jpg

          1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
            SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol...maybe tomorrow...k? or some other time..........

          2. cloverleaffarm profile image80
            cloverleaffarmposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, thanks. I like me the way I am.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Most people do like themselves the way they are.

              The question is, does God?

              1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think a better question is:

                Why doesn't God? 

                Did He create such foul beings to only have worth in Him? I certainly have value devoid of "Him." I have value because I'm alive. I have value because I am. That's all. The same for each and every person, animal and other living thing. We are not tools proved useless to be thrown away. We are people. People who "make mistakes," which is simply a part of life, and only defined through the eyes of society... If God can't appreciate that, we certainly don't have the husband/wife relationship you keep bringing up.

                I can't remember if it was you that said that God doesn't have to compromise for us. That's a one-sided "marriage."

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you have such a low opinion of God? You have value because you are made in His image, and that makes you infinitely valuable.

                  You are alive because He gave you life, and He values you, no matter what you do. He doesn't find people inherently disgusting and nauseating. But He doesn't accept just anybody, the same way you and I don't accept just anybody.

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Why do you have such a low opinion of God?"

                    He seems to have a low opinion of me... I'm not worth anything outside of Him, which is the only time I am truly me. Otherwise, I'm just a part of Him, and I'm certain its not hard for Him to love Himself.

                    "You have value because you are made in His image, and that makes you infinitely valuable."

                    How do I have infinite value, when Hell is even a choice of where I can go? Also, I'm not even "worthy" to be in His presence without a mediator.

                    "You are alive because He gave you life, and He values you, no matter what you do."

                    Really? Am I supposed to believe that? He only truly values you if you decide to follow His path. Otherwise you are like a  fig tree not bearing fruit, useless, to be cast into the fire; worthless. All the "feelings" don't matter as much as the choices you make. He chose to create Lucifer. He chose to tempt Eve (I'll explain why it was God tempting them, if you like). He chose to create Hell. He chose to be a stickler with His own law. If God's ways are unchangeable, they are something that He is a slave to, as well. Any man can change his own nature. But God, it seems, cannot. And if He can and does, it means that He is imperfect because He makes mistakes.

                    "He doesn't find people inherently disgusting and nauseating. But He doesn't accept just anybody, the same way you and I don't accept just anybody."

                    Isn't God's ways supposed to be higher than ours?

                    But anyway, that's where I'd have to disagree with you. I don't need a person to be what I want in order for me to accept them. I accept my mother. Yes, she's done a lot for me, but she has also done a lot that has damaged me psychologically, emotionally. She has a very oppressive personality, and I don't like her very much. But I love her, and accept that she is who she is, though who she is isn't what I want or needed out of a mother, but I understand why she's that way due to her experiences being abused physically and emotionally as a child, and an incessant need for approval. We're both human. We both make mistakes. I'm no different from her in that regard. I don't like everything that she does or says. But I "accept" her. And I know she needs me, otherwise she would really be even more lonely.

                    God should be able to accept just anyone, but even if He can't, WHAT HE WANTS ISN'T ALL THAT MATTERS. We learn that growing up! Just because I want you to be a certain way doesn't mean you are obligated to be that way because I want it. That's selfish of me. How can I get offended for you being you! You have the right to be you! I can give you suggestions, advice, warnings, but at the end of the day, I am me, and you are you. We are different, and THAT'S OK. At least, that's how I see it. There are people I don't like being around because of their personality types, but I wouldn't ever want them to go to a place like Hell, nor if I had the choice to, would I create it.

                    I certainly have friends who aren't always pleasant to be around, but we have common ground in our humanity, and I accept that they are different from me. The people closer to me are the ones more similar to me, of course, but I don't shun anyone. I certainly disagree with people. (I have avoided certain people from my past, but that's a different story).

                    After reading what I wrote, you'll probably say, "why don't you approach God that way." I would say because, 1) I don't believe in this God, and 2) "He" is a different case. I accept people because they are people, and because it's kind of not my right not to accept them, I don't know if that makes sense. We're all "flawed," unique, bleed the same blood , go through some of the same sh*t in this world. And many go through different things. But we're all trying to make it on this planet together. I accept that.

                    1. 0
                      genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Well, you have a good username smile where do I start? You have a lot of word andfeeling behind this air that you speak of. Sarcasm, yes. God is real. He don't operate the way you think he should. Ut you don't know everything.  If he did things your way, there would be no such thing as bad/good. Let him drive...he knows the way.

                    2. Chris Neal profile image83
                      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I already answered this one. You are more valuable than you know.

      11. KellyPittman profile image81
        KellyPittmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That was a very powerful article and I loved it!  Thanks for sharing that.  LOVE can change our perspectives. Sigh.  But I can see from comments here that some still don't get it and that's heartbreaking.

      12. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Let's go right back to where this Hub started.  After literally hundreds of back-and-forth arguments, from people who think they have a special relationship with "god," it has got us absolutely no where of any use at all.

        I have come to see all those steeped in their christian dogma as having one basic outlook:  they are professing christianity for themselves, because it gives them a sense of authority.  They can point a finger at anyone whom they think is a sinner, then declare that "god" doesn't like the sinning, so the sinner better watch out!

        When anyone chooses to counter their argument, the secret weapon is the statement that the laws are made by "god," an invisible, infinite 'being' who looks down on us in the manner of a very strict, father-like school master.  Because we cannot see this School Master, but need a special relationship with the 'holy spirit' in order to read Him and understand Him, we have no defense in the argument.  The christian wins hands-down.  There is always more "mystery" they can call upon, to meet any argument at all.

        So, folks, this argument and this Hub will never come to an end.  At least, not a profitable end for us "sinners."  Is there a more edifying discussion we can have, where it will not be infiltrated by gospelers?

        1. 0
          genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This discussion has touched someone. It is neccesary to explain the points of the faith to those who wonder. Differing pov creates an option. Do you realize that it takes faith to not believe in God. You do believe something..'

          1. Randy Godwin profile image95
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, now I do believe you are a Baptist, Genaea.  Who informed you "it takes faith not to believe in god"?  Or is this in the bible too?smile

                                                     http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. 0
              genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Faith is believing w/o seeing. You believe a LOT that im sure you've never seen. You just eish to believe that ourposition is wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person, just wrong...in our opinion.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                See, I asked you a question and this is how you answer it?  You did not say who told you this at all.  You could at least say, "no one told me, I made it up cause it sounds good" or you could say "the preacher said it," or "it's in the bible". Instead, you go rambling along about faith and how wrong I am about your position.

                This is why I posted to another about your not answering questions.  So try again if you want any respect from those you are attempting to communicate with, or simply don't ask any questions yourself.  I am not impressed with your communication skills thus far, Genaea.  sad

                                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. 0
                  genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I answered your question Randy.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No you didn't Genaea.  I asked who told you "it takes faith to not believe in god?  So who was it again?  I must have missed your answer!

                                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                    1. 0
                      genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Oh. Takes faith to believe in evolution. Science.   The texts that say Jesus had a wife' the fact that all other religions, cults, doct rt ines uv come across have any merit or carry any weight. Uv just kinda let ur faith loose to do its own thing. You justbelieve in...what again???

          2. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You persist in the ranting on about what the bible says.  All the time you keep doing that, there are homosexual people being vilified for what they are and what people think "they do." 

            There are individuals here who have a big, big problem with sex.  Vector7 has admitted himself that he is one.  This bible thumping stuff is nothing but a big cop-out!  Some use it as their pseudo-authority to judge and preach to others.  Some use it as an excuse to cover over their own sexual desires.

            At least one person here has been honest enough to shout: "BORING!"  It is boring, and I would have deserted you all long ago had it not been my fear that you are doing harm to so many peoples' lives.  You are displaying anything but love for others. 

            Get your heads out of that bible.  Get to looking inside of yourselves and finding the true Self within you.  Use the help of a professional NON-BIASED person to help you get to grips with your confused mental state.

            LAY OFF bashing of people who's sexuality and social needs you don't understand.  Deal with your OWN life, get the plank out of your OWN eye first.

            EVERY PERSON IN THIS HUB who has a problem with queers, YOU have your own inner work to do.  The sooner the better for all concerned.

            1. 0
              genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Woe jonny, I haven't seen any gay "bashing" since iv been in this forum. Vector7 share his issue as a way to demonstrate "no judgment" only what the bible says. We speak of it often, for it is our (Christians> those who believe it's message about Christ) blueprint for navigating this thing calld life. We believe that it would free you too. God is in control and we follow bcuz we know hes ight. And we know he has already won the fight. Please join us if you want to realize that all the studying you do only leaves you with more questions. God has all the answers.

              1. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                To people like myself and probably jonnycomelately, (I don't mean to speak for you, sir), the belief in god brings more questions than answers. That's just a personal difference that won't change. For vector, whom I do consider a friend, and yourself, you just see things differently. You can't really claim that it's right because of the overwhelming lack of evidence and contradicting evidence. For the same reason, I don't claim I am right, I just go with what seems most logical to me.

                I wouldn't say there is direct gay bashing going on in this thread for the most part, but to take what you believe is god's word and condemn the behavior, is just a round about way of taking a stance on it. If you did approve of it, you could say, "well, the bible says this, but I think different , etc.," But, since you do not, you are taking "god's words," as your own and projecting them, and thus you are adding to the bigger problem by not really accepting/tolerating gay people.

                I think you are entitled to your opinions, even if they are in the area of bigotry, and for whatever reason you want to claim; my only beef is when things are unethical or unfair, as I don't believe gays should be treated any different than straight people and the bulk of the laws that cause inequality are usually from a religious agenda, which is wrong since we are not a christian only nation, and are supposed to have a separation of church and state.

                1. 0
                  genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, i missed this post earlier. To answer... I am not against anyone. Fornicators, homosexuals, cheaters, liars thieves, murderers, etc. are all under the same category, sin. God and ideas as such are all illogical. You must have faith to believe all of the things that discredit the bible. It's all a atter of  WHERE you place your faith... We are all labled "sinner" except God let his children add    further "saved by grace" Learn of him w/o logic. Our minds are too little. We just can't take it ALL in. but, when u follow one who does know it ALL, The Father. You can't lose wink peace is one of the benefits. You just realize that you don't have to know it all. I can never "think differently" than the bible, it sved my life. If u wanna do like me, please do. If not, i can handle that. I came, like Jesus, for the one who is lost. you obviously have found your way

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Interestingly enough, we have found that the vast majority of believers here and most likely everywhere are indeed liars, which means they're all equivalent to murderers, based on your "thinking"

                    It would then be appropriate we refer to your quote here each and every time a believer lies about something.

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I don't want to have to quote this every time a believer posts!  Perhaps HP could simply put a button on the bottom of the message box we could click which would automatically post her quote?  Good idea ain't it?  roll


                                                      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                    2. 0
                      genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      And that's most of my point. We are all guilty. It takes a kind and loving God to forgive us and mske us clean because of faith in him.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Here you go again, genaea !  Can't you see it?  Your brain is in limbo!  You DO judge.  You use your preconceptions about the bible to apply that judgment.  You PRESUME that I and others NEED what you have got in your beliefs.

                BUTT OUT OF PEOPLES' LIVES!  Believe what you want for yourself.  The world is full of people like you who make it their business to direct other peoples' lives. Your convenient use of the biblical scriptures to bolster your authority DOES NOT WASH WITH ME. 

                This is why I am still in this Hub.  To counter the rubbish that you and people like you are pouring into the world.

                There is no "god" in control, and your beliefs are not sacrosanct, they are figments of your own imagination. You are not applying Love when you only follow those beliefs.

                1. 0
                  genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You mad jonny? You are trying to push your beliefson me... You say that i am judging bcuzi say you need the peace of God??? I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I only offer the beauty in my world. I see clearly and i want that for all who would benefit. Now, if u wanna stick around and hear more...ur welcome smile im gonna tell it... I have no choice. Im convinced. I have a duty to report that. So please stay with me... I'm wearin u down:) i know he speaks to you... Listen

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Johnny you are wasting your breath because you aren't seeing the big picture.  It has nothing to do with religion for these "Christians"... They would think being gay was an abomination regardless of what the bible said.  The bible is a cover for their own hang ups.  Christ has always been used as a scapegoat for people to maintain the status quo and force conformity... I guess they will find out how he feels about being used like that someday (or they wont if he doesn't exist)... either way you have to hate the zealot not the religion.  The Christian faith-in this case- is like an innocent rape victim being used to feed her attackers need for power and dominance.  The Christ I follow wasn't really into that kinda thing... I don't know who they are following but it's not the guy in my bible.

                  1. livelonger profile image91
                    livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Very nicely said. I don't think the point should be to dissuade Christians from being Christians - not to turn the spotlight on you, but you're an example for whom Christianity works for splendidly - but to convince them to be better Christians.

                    Using a cruel interpretation of scripture as a cudgel to hurt others is a bastardization of what scripture was intended for.

                    1. 0
                      genaeaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Thank God for you Melisssa wink Jesus never allowed one to walk away w/o the truth. When the word was challenged, he spoke the truth of the matter in love. Thanks for stopping by wink

      13. janikon profile image88
        janikonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I want to thank you for posting this, I would not have read it otherwise. This article sheds light on the fundamental issue with many religious-based arguments surrounding homosexuality, though many say they 'do not hate' their comments and actions only breed it.

        The article also made me smile and now I want a cookie.

      14. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
        schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        wow cool article

    2. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      I'm a Christian unless you are a murderer, thief, liar, adulterer or whatever your preference is for sinning.  Well, Gee, whiz, I think God forgives all of those things so that you can develop the right relationship with Him.  But if you prefer not to repent and quit your sinning, Dose God love you.  Of course He does but He doesn't like the things you do.  And as long as you prefer to do those things, you do not have the right relationship with God.  Does that sound as though God may be a right wing Christian?

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, if I'm gay, you're not a christian....are you gay?

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, that sounds like the person  objecting is a right-wing Christian, defined by their apparent ability to, and interpret, what he thought and how he felt. Impressive, wish I could get into his head like that. Here's an interesting link, written, not by an arm chair bible reader, but by someone who has studied the subject in depth.

        http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/levi … osexuality

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting hub, Hollie, but it neglects Paul's writings in roman's Chapter 1 and assumes that one ommission nulifies the existence of the first statement.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Paul's writings were dealing with the same things as the Leviticus verses. The same explaination applies (substitute Greek)..

            1. Don Crowson profile image78
              Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're right.  Paul condemed homosexuality.  Can you explain Sodom and Gomorrah?

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
                DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Paul condemned temple prostitution...The same as what is talked about in Leviticus.

                Sodom and Gomorrah, according to the bible, was destroyed because of their ill-treatment of strangers...As the Mosiac laws require you to take care of strangers and to send them on their way with provisions to sustain them to their next stop.

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The way they treated strangers? Read it again.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Read Ezekiel 16:49.. or my post a few post back...Never mind...I'll post it for ya...

                    "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

                    1. livelonger profile image91
                      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Correct. Jewish scripture is full of accounts of the many, many ways Sodomites & Gomorrans were inhospitable and cruel to strangers; they never once talked about gay people. It seems silly to have to make this point, but men raping men is no more a normal gay behavior than men raping women a normal straight behavior. Rape is rape, and it's bad.

              2. petealex profile image61
                petealexposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sir you are handling yourself very well in this thread. I thought the questions were for the christain community as well. You know people tend to do what is best for themselves and think abot God second or even farther down the line. There are many scriptures that shows The Lord's attitude about homeosexuality, but right know I cant find scripture to back it up so I wont argue. Scripture is powerful.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I've just read the hub and would like to invite all fundies to read it.

            Don,
            According to the definition of an apostle in Acts 1, Paul wasn't one. As far as I'm aware, the only person who called Paul an apostle in the NT was Paul himself. The only writings that Jesus, Paul and the apostles recognised as scripture were the Hebrew scriptures. As a Pharisee, no doubt Paul would have considered it blasphemy that people called his writings scripture.

            Taken all together, as Paul's writings are not scripture, we cannot form doctrine fom them. Paul's writings express his views and opinions only and thus he is no different from any Church minister today. We are free to disagree with him with clear conscience, much like the church does over matters of women being silent in Church, women being forced to wear silly hats, and men being forbidden to have long hair.

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You and who said it's not scripture?

              It's in MY Bible.

              Everyone I know sees scripture, apparently way back before you were born as well.

      3. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        EXACTLY!!! that was very well said.

      4. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Double that vote Don.

        I agree as well.

        smile

      5. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If, just for the sake of this argument and not accepting the existence of a judgmental god, we accept that "god" doesn't like what a gay person "does," what is it exactly?  What action or set of actions are you talking about? 

        If a person claims to be "a christian," (whatever the characteristics of a christian are), what exactly will happen to him if he persists in doing the things in answer to the first part of this question?

    3. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @jdflom  The thread specifies Christian and Gay.  It has nothing to do with any other belief.  Other beliefs may be valid, but this thread specifically is the person is Christian in all instsnces except when it comes to Gays.

      1. jdflom profile image85
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand that and I read the article, too; but I was responding to gaeparks who stated "the Word of God has to be the standard." I was merely pointing out why that is an incorrect statement by addressing other beliefs.

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          For the Christian, The Word of God, is the Bible.  Without the Bible that would be no Christianity.  Therefore, the thread is limited to Christians.  If you want to choose another authority as the Word of God, feel free to do so. But is you do the peremise in this thread is voided.

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are incorrect, gaeparks made a blatant statement about the word of god being the standard. If you make it the standard you are invalidating all other religions, atheists and agnostics. Based on that, it therefore makes it more than a Christian issue. I'm not telling you or him you cannot be Christian, I'm saying you cannot make your religious beliefs the standard for everyone else.

            1. gaeparks profile image84
              gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are incorrect and mistaken. What i said is that if you are Chrstain then the Word of God must be the standard we live by...I did not  and wuld not attempt to tell anyone what to believe. However, when one calls themself a Christain...then the Word of God is the one and only standard...and that is non-negociable to the Christain.

              1. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                As I pointed out above, in your initial statement, you did not specify Christian.

                Here is YOUR wording: "We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard..." At no point did you specify Christianity with that quote.

                1. gaeparks profile image84
                  gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I am sure that as you just did it is quite easy tp pick at little pieces of what someone says to make your point...the entire piece is one...and I did make the definitive connection between the Christain and the Word of God...but then you have your right to see what you see. However, if you will attempt to quote then get it right and use the entire piece and not just picking and choosing. BTW that is the problem with many Christians...they try to pick and choose what they wish to follow in the Bible as it benefits them. Either way...the mode of my piece does not seperate the Christian from the Word of God being the standard.

                  1. jdflom profile image85
                    jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't pick and choose -- that was your quote and almost the first thing you said and one of your points.

                    Here's your entire quote: "We are all sinners...with that said the Bible...the Word of God has to be the standard and as with all sins the Bible teaches that we are to hate the sin and not the sinner and that has nothing to do with being right-winged." I don't see where you specified Christians.

                    In addition, if you read my response I said that I was glad you revised and clarified what you said.

    4. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      Yes, I've heard that version.  And also the version that King James was a homosexual.  Can you document you your version of that story?

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't know if King James was gay or not...I do know that his bible wasn't taken from the orginal Hebrew and Greek texts, but from "bibles" of the time...

        And there is nothing in the bible that states that Sodom and Gomorrah was filled with gays...Just that they were "sinners"

        Gen 18:20-21
        20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
        21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

        And if one reads Ezekiel 16:49
        "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for your post DS I had not noticed this before.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Anytime...Keep the posts coming. I enjoy your thoughts. smile

        2. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How convenient that yoy left out the part of the text that says that Sodom and Gomorrah committed detestable deeds in the eyes of God. The translation of the word detestable deeds is directly related to the Leviticus text about a man laying with another man and the Romans text about male prostitutes and the Jude text about sexual immorality...Please show the entire text and do a more complete research.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don, with respect to you, I have stated several times over the past months that there is no such thing as "a homosexual."   Homosexual is an adjective or advert, depending how it is used.

        You cannot point to a person and say "that guy or girl is 'a' homosexual."  There are no consistent outward signs of such an orientation.  Homosexual people are not consistently effeminate. or sporting weird hair/adornments.  We don't have green eyes or horns on our heads.  We are not more of a danger to children than heterosexual people.  We do not all, consistently, engage in anal intercourse, (although many heterosexual people do). 

        We are as varied a group of people as any heterosexual group. 

        So please, could you do us all a favour, and simply regard us as fellow human beings?  Give us respect.  If there is anything which we do of a hateful or cruel or selfish nature, then of course we will stand up for the judgement of society around us like anyone else.

        There is no "god" out there who is going to judge me when I am dead and gone.  Any judgement is done by my fellow humans around me, during this lifetime.  And it is usually a very inadequate judgement, generally biased and ill-informed.

    5. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      Exactly, Kenennett1.  God loves everyone.  But he does not lik the things they do. Every thing would be great if God had not wanted man to repent.  But the repent problem leaves everyone in a bind.  Otherwise we would go on doing what the carnal mind wishes to do.  God still loves us, but he doesn't love what we do.

      He doesn't stop loving us when we sin, but if we do not repent, we are out of the relationship with God.  What does that mean?  It means that God loves you, but not the things you do.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said.

        smile

    6. Randy Godwin profile image95
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

      King James was a well known homosexual as you'll find out if you study his life.  But the OP could easily have read "Love Christ, hate the Christian" and it would also fit well for some believers.



                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      1. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who care what King James was...hs only contribution to the Bible was a bad translation and that he so happened to be King when the translation was done and therefore his ego put his name on the translation. Now to his alleged homosexualty...if he was nd felt he was born that way and he was king and the hhest human authority...why did he allow the Bible to be transated in a way that speaks against who he was? he could have had the wording changed or omitted completely. Again...that translation has many many naccuracies...you might want to read NIV or NAS they are much more accurate...and they say the same thing as the king ames when it comes to the point f homosexality and how and what God feels about it...period.

    7. DoubleScorpion profile image87
      DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago

      I read an interesting point on FB...

      "If being GAY was a choice, then when did you decide to become STRAIGHT?"

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          [-1]

          lol


          Sorry, unless design is useless..

          You can't plug a female electrical cord unit, into a female electrical wall outlet.

          Functionality states the obvious use of the mechanisms built into the biological human body.

          Just because someone likes pink and pretty and is confused about it, it doesn't change the obvious... It just means they are confused mentally and like something that doesn't fit puzzle-wise.

          If you like the puzzle pieces mixed up, it doesn't mean you put the puzzle together 'your' way, it means you didn't put it together, and if you think you have and just did it different...

          You're confused.

          Confused people aren't right just because they think they are right.

          They are confused because they are wrong and think it's right.

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            vector -- Hope you're doing okay, I noticed you didn't post for like 2 days, was hoping to chat with you more on your other forum post.

            At any rate, obviously for procreation, the male part is meant to go in the female part; but that isn't the only way to enjoy each other (and as science has advanced, not the only way to procreate); and as humans, we have sex for more than just procreation. If someone doesn't want to, that is clearly their choice, but most people also have sex for pleasure.

            I know several gay people and they don't seem mentally confused or confused in any capacity. I doubt we will ever come to an agreement on that, but it's how I have perceived them and I couldn't be happier for them that they have found partners that make them happy. In my experience, although I am not gay, being gay isn't a choice; it's as natural as being born with freckles or being born with curly hair.

            So, functionality wise, as you put it -- which would be for procreation in my opinion, the normal and obvious pairing would be M and F, but that doesn't have to be the only way.

            If you see it as a mental limitation, fine, but know they are happier being gay, and they aren't hurting anyone; so why all the fuss?

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol, a mental limitation?

              No.. I see it as a choice.

              Get anyone roused up enough they're bound to do things abnormal.

              I won't go in details here, and think maybe we'll pick up later.


              I'm trying to get to a keyboard in a bit, and I'll try to get around to a response on my thread.

              I like how you aren't in the repeat, repeat, repeat business. I prefer thoughts.. lol

              Talk soon.

              -v7

              smile

      2. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        gay and atraight are social words and social standards...the fact remains that if we are all created by God and God is God and devine...then he wuld have to have contradicted Himslef in His own Word..which is impossible. Graple all you want but my stance is that there is not scientific proof of homosexuality being genetic and that God does not condone the life style. However, God does condone and blesses that union between man and woman...period

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
          DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this



          And there is no proof of there being a God either...So both of our points are moot.

          1. gaeparks profile image84
            gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh but you are so wrong. There are sooooo much proof of God that it is astounding. But...there are none so bling than those who will not see.

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
              DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Please prove me wrong. I am open to see it...There is plenty that we humans can give God credit for if we so choose. And there is plenty  of things we can't explain that we just chalk up to "God did it"

              Please show me astounding amount of proof.

              And ther is just as much proof in science as well...For those not blinded by "faith" and who choose to accept the facts.


              And just so you know...I am a "believer" as well...I may not believe exactly like you do...But I am not so vain as to even consider the reasons I believe as to being actual proof of there being a God of any sort...They are my reasons and my proof...And Since there is no way I could ever "show" these "proofs" to anyone else...I don't make a claim of "truth" that I cannot use facts everyone can actually see as facts and/or accept as facts and make their own decision as to the validity of those facts.

              1. gaeparks profile image84
                gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Double Scorpion you say you are a believer and will not say what you believe...that brings to question your true faith in what you believe for if you "believe in God' Then He said that we who believe are not to be ashamed of Him before people. That being said...I am a science teacher and have lived a life involving science. Science proves God and research are coming out more and more that shows that. Scientists because of the philosophers of old who were also artists and debaters have created this "gap" between science and God. I can get as deep as you choose but here is one small point.
                The human sperm hold no charge. the human egg holds not charge. Mathematically 0+0=0 therefore two existing organisms with 0 charge cannot possibly produce a charge or any kind.
                You would agree so far?
                At the point of fertilization of a human female egg by the human male sperm and thanks to Alber Einstien who actually develope a unit of measure for this phenomenon...there is measurable energy charge and a measurable flash of what can only be called light enegry at the point and moment of fertilization when the sperm enters the egg and mitosis occurs.
                Again...0+0=0
                Where did the two sources of energy come from?
                What cause the process of mitosis (doubling) into zygotes.
                How do two single cell-like organisms become the complex biological system that is the human that we are?
                This is a rather simplistic yet complex explanation and question.
                the "big band theory" states that and explosion occured...what exploded and where did it come form?
                They say the Hydrogen gas started spinning because of gravity...where did the gravity come from as we all know that gravity is the result of an existing object that is spinning and based on its mass vreatyes gravity...so i ask what caused the Hydrogen gas to start to spin?
                Double Scorpion I can go on and on
                The Bible says that God holds the universe in His hands.
                I know it is hard the grasp...but that is where faith comes in and not blind faith...SCIENCE PROVES GOD!!!

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
                  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Since you teach science, I will assume at the bare minimum you hold a BA/BS with a Teaching Cert...But I will say you hold at least a Masters in some area of education (leaning towards science smile )

                  Science is not my area of expertise, although I did quite well throughout my education in this area.
                  I hold a Doctorate in Biblical Studies. So Philosophy and Religions are my area of interest...

                  So let me first address your thought on the word "detestable" from your earlier post...Found in Ezekiel 16:50 the word "detestable" ( תֹועֵבָ֖ה---to·v·'e·vah) or the better interpretation of the word "abomination" as defined in Strongs says "something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol -- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

                  Next I'll touch on your egg and sperm analogy using my layman's understanding...
                  Human egg is a living cell/organism...Must have a "charge" or wouldn't be living would it? Same with the sperm...

                  If I take carpet and a balloon, both non-living things and without a "charge" and rub them together I can create a static charge...Does that make me God??? I can create a "charge" from two objects which aren't alive. Using your theory, then it must be so...

                  Lastly...I am not ashamed of my beliefs...I never said I was...I said that I am not so vain or proud to think my proof of what I believe is actual physical proof that anyone and everyone can perceive, and I am not insecure in my beliefs and so do not feel the need that I need to attempt to prove to others that I am right and hold proof positive.

                  There are many (not pointing at you, speaking generally), who place complete faith in what is written in their English version of the bible...And they have little to no understanding of what the original language and the writers of the timeframes where even talking about or the context they used in their writing styles. I always highly recommend every single Christian or follower of the bible take two classes...One on the Old Testament and One of the New Testament... A course that actually explains the text, the authors, the style and context of the writings and the actual meaning behind some of the most commonly misunderstood terms used throughout the English translations of the bible.

                  1. gaeparks profile image84
                    gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are correct about my education with the addition of one more degree which is a BA in Biblical Studies...I applaud your Doctoral accomplishment. The example of the living thing with the sperm and egg is inaccurate in that they have no charge...been tested as doctors and scientists have been trying to give reason for the energies that result from conception. The example of the static charge does not make you God but it does adds to reason that there is energy around us...the question is what is the source...I can go into the physics of the ballon and the carpet if you'd like...but the fatc is that they both hold a charge by virtue of their synthetic makeup...whereas the sperm and the egg hold no charge. Just like the human heart hold no charge by itself but can be read by an ECG unit...research this stuff it will amaze you and the existence of God will simply be revealed greater than you can ever imagine...IT IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.
                    There is an experiment that was conducted by some physics students at NYU where they set up a cpntrolled area with sea salt and with not air movement or any other natural or mechanical effect they introduced pure sound waves that are in the frequencies of speech and the salt moved into first simple geometric shapes and when the sound was introduced with multiple frequences within that same range the salt moved into more complex geometric patterns. You can view the experiment on utube...I think it is still there.
                    And God spoke...and the earth was formed. Science proves God.
                    There are other more detailed experiments with a Japanese Doctor and how water reacts to different sounds....an amazing piece.

              2. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Show me advance in technology that didn't come from intention of purpose and effort into production of an imagined idea, and I may personally endulge your notion that there is no proof for God's existence.

                As it stands innovation comes strictly from intelligent brain power and from NO OTHER SOURCE.

                I see many, many extinctions, and no 'evolutions' [macro].

                De-evolution is what mankind is in.

                I wouldn't have even considered posting this to anyone else, and consider you one of those who admit truth when they see it. [or state how you see it rather than the insult approach. ]

                I personally think what I mentioned above states exactly why not believing in God is much less intelligent of a logical choice.

                And I also personally think that with all the parallels it should be one of science's subjects of study, as it seems many of the connections are found there rather than the myth of evolution.

                Biological flight is not something able to be considered at all a possibility by evolution's stated processes [which are also wrong as none of it is true on a macro scale.]

                Does any of this seem true to you?

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
                  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this



                  I agree with the first part...innovation comes from intellegence (brainpower).
                  Belief in God is not the same as Proof of God. Let's look at what the majority consider as proof...Something tangible in some form or another. This is something we just cannot provide with God...Experiencing God is a spiritual thing and is a feeling that we get that can be explained by nothing else. If someone never "feels" this, then there is no possible way to explain it that they would understand or be able to accept as viable proof. It is kinda like explaining color to a blind person...Unless they actually experience it, it is nothing more than words and cannot be "Proven" to them. We just can't prove it to them, because they have no possible way to "see" the proof.
                  Those who are the believing type have their "proof" and nothing can talk them out of that...But trying to prove that "proof" to another...impossible to do as we cannot prove a "feeling". The best we can do is show our "proof" through our actions and interactions with others...To many times it seems we say one thing, but act in the opposite of our words and then expect others to believe what we say as "truth".

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can respect that post as pretty much true, if I'm understanding all of it correctly I say I agree.

                    But I think that may just be what seperates those of one kind from another, just as you stated.

                    Thanks for your thoughts DS, I got some perspective from them.

    8. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago

      Why you people don't understand, god only condone murder, slavery, adultery and bigotry not homosexuality?

      1. pisean282311 profile image58
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol when did sexual orientation become god's business?

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You know it is god that created homosexuals, but he want them to use free will to resist their natural orientation. Just to test their mettle (just like the gladiators who were asked to fight each other and animals). Eternity is boring, why god is not allowed a little enjoyment?

        2. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          pisean...all human business is God's business...all.
          jomine...you make a humanistic correlation to God and that is the error in your reasoning. God does not test anyone...ever. God gives us free will to love Him and each other. Along with that free will comes the will to choose what we do and say and how we live. That goes for all people about all things involving people. The Bible says that it is the desire of God that all will be saved. That is the measure of His love...we choose what pathe we take...he chooses the results of that choice. I teach this concept to kids..."I am different and so are you...and that makes us all the same...different too." There is an old R&B group called The Stylistics who sand a song that says "People make the world go round..."

        3. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          when did sexual orientation become (non-existent) god's business?

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How were your travels?

            1. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Greetings WD and everyone "Hubbing."   Still on travels, in Caribbean right now.  If you can read between the lines, I am needing some medication today!  Usual tropical malady.   Nothing to worry about.  Internet connection is sporadic.

              Loving my contact with other cultures and living conditions.  Very humbled, but hoping there might be ways of sharing some of my "eco" interests.

              Have met with some wonderful people.

      2. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        jomine...God does not condone any of those things and He also does not condone homosexuality....but whatever.

    9. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @Double Scorpion.
      Great quote.  Now go back and read the preceding verses.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That whole chapter is is talking about the downfall of Jeruselem... and it is being compared to other fallen cities...

        But it clearly states the "Sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah. And it wasn't homosexuality...It was ill-treatment of strangers and the poor.

    10. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago

      I read the article and it falls in line with what I've always seen. People fear what they don't know. Hate is easy, when coupled with a degree of anonymity. But most people, when the unknown becomes known in their own home, rise above their childish and petty beliefs and offer love and support.  Well, not all. But most do their level best to try.

    11. ii3rittles profile image85
      ii3rittlesposted 4 years ago

      People need to look in the mirror before they cast stones. If a person is seeking the truth, seeking God, believes Jesus died for their sins and wants to live the life God showed us thru Jesus, yet happens to be gay, Why does that not make them a Christian? We all sin, whether in action or thought. If a gay person is trying to fight off the ergs and truly trying to seek understanding and help from God then who are we to say they are not Christians?

      It is in my understanding that ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE US. For ever measure you judge onto others, so you shall be judged onto you by God.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I can back that up.

        My birth name means "God is my judge."

        smile

    12. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago

      I'm Christian, whether you're gay or not.

      I like, weed, driving at 100 mph, getting things for free, and trying new things..

      But you won't catch me lighting up a j....

      Being chased by the cops at 140....

      Stealing from bass pro shop....

      Or trying crack cocaine....


      Square blocks, circle holes.. Doesn't make it right because you want it to fit.

      I was born this way, doesn't make what I 'like' right.


      People who want to be gay are no different.

      They are not better than me, nor am I better than them.



      I love them, and so does God.

      smile

      1. jdflom profile image85
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Vector, it's good you have self control; but the only problem with that is that being homosexual isn't about self control. If it were, you'd have homosexual "urges" too.

        They don't want to be gay. Like I stated earlier, with the gay people I know -- they didn't choose it. They were born that way. It couldn't be any clearer to me. Just like I didn't choose to be straight, I just am, I was born that way. I see it the same way for them.

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What's more, gay relationships are not any more just about sexual pleasure than straight relationships are. Loneliness is a flaw in creation; meaningful, mutually dependent, and loving relationships is the solution. For straight people, that means a male-female pairing; for gay people, that means female-female or male-male ones.

          Forcing a square peg into a round hole is how you get people like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, bearing false witness and emotionally harming people as part of their self-deception.

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are totally correct livelonger. I apologize for neglecting to add that aspect.

            1. livelonger profile image91
              livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No need to apologize - was just adding to your well-reasoned post.

    13. hookedhuntress profile image60
      hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago

      Romans 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
      27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God who created Adam, a man, and then made Eve, a woman.  This is what God has ordained as the normal means by which we carry out his command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28).  What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up.

      The Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God.

      So-called christian people being hateful and mean to homosexuals would be more of an exception and not the rule.(We are not all Pastor Fred Phelps)

      all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles.
      The Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian.

      Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
      It would go against the Christian bible.

    14. hookedhuntress profile image60
      hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago

      Gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged and pushed the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought the scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the vast research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They fail to find, because it is not there..

        Excellect posts.

        smile

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In fact it may not be genetic, but it may be just one of those things that happen in the womb. We do know it's not personal choice. There, from what I understand seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and birth order. I've read (and seen) that homosexuality for males is more prevalent for the third male born.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I've been around the block a few times (though many here assume they know what I'm knowledgeable of) and things aren't quite so simple as "I was born this way."

            People can say they were born this way when it comes to being a cold blooded killer.

            Any decision one makes can be carried that direction, especially claim the children of the children have increased desire to further the urge.

            OF COURSE the children have stronger urges.. The father/mother indulged in the urge and if you know anything on human nature and feeding desires the conclusion is obvious.



            I wasn't intending to iron all this out, but just because people enjoy something from birth doesn't change it's abnormality.

            smile

            1. jdflom profile image85
              jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I would say that homosexuality is normal rather than abnormal because it's been occurring for as long as we know, including as far back as ancient Rome times. It may be uncommon since obviously the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, but I wouldn't label it abnormal just like I wouldn't label someone with red hair abnormal.

              1. hookedhuntress profile image60
                hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry but I am going to get somewhat graphic here as I think it warrants it.

                A person's anus and lower intestine is for the body to eliminate fecal waist not to have sex with. It was not made for sex.

                How can you consider that "normal"?   

                They have tried to dress it up with names such as gay and homosexual but really how "normal" is that kind of activity.

                Seriously

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha ah ha ha ha. that's too funny. So only gays like the anus? I know lots of straight guys that like the anus. I don't personally understand it, but it's not only for gays, as is oral sex.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's destructive of the functionality needed to be normal.

                    You think it's normal, for a man or woman, to need surgery or a plug for their rear to keep waste from involuntarily falling out?

                    And as for oral sex, it's not functionally productive.

                    At best, it's a lazy way out of physical intercourse.



                    smile

                    1. jdflom profile image85
                      jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Vector: "It's destructive of the functionality needed to be normal." Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but could you explain what you mean by that?

                      Oral sex is all about pleasure. So IF you're suggesting that procreation is productive, then you'd be right. But some people put value in pleasure, and so to them, oral sex would be productive. I know that not everyone puts value in oral sex, gay or straight. So, that just boils down to personal opinion.

                    2. 0
                      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Oh I don't believe I said anything about needing surgery or a plug for a their rear to keep waste from involuntary falling out. I said it's not just a gay thing to like the anus. It's not for me either, but it says something about the difference between being gay or straight.
                      And if you think oral sex does not have a function then you need to ask your partner the same question. It certainly has a function.

                  2. hookedhuntress profile image60
                    hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Rad,I didn't say anywhere that it was only for "gays".

                    IMO it isn't for anyone.That is not the natural use of those parts but sure consenting adults  can do whatever they want with their bodies.

                    1. 0
                      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      So two connecting homosexuals can do whatever they want with there bodies as well. Just because I don't like to picture it in my mind doesn't make it a sin.

                2. jdflom profile image85
                  jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you want to go there, sure. If it didn't feel good, people wouldn't be doing it. I know straight males that like pleasure back there, but they will never be with another male.

                  If you are too uncomfortable with your own sexuality, that's fine, but other's aren't. Obviously there's no chance of procreation, but it's for pleasure.

                  I would go as far to say that yes, sex in the anus is normal. Maybe not normal for you, but normal for some. Since it isn't normal for you, it's within your right to consider it not normal, but is skydiving normal to you? Is eating a vegetarian diet normal to you? Maybe you're a vegetarian skydiver, but I think you get my point.

                  1. hookedhuntress profile image60
                    hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I find it interesting that you are accusing me of being uncomfortable with my sexuality without even knowing me,that's fine. 

                    It is what  you, and I am sure most of the world  would  classify as normal but from a Christian perspective,we are not to conform to what would be considered the normalcy of the world. 

                    I don't think it is comparable  to skydiving and being a vegetarian.

                    jdflom,we will most likely  not agree but I respect your right to state your opinions.


                    smile

                    1. jdflom profile image85
                      jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I said IF. I wasn't accusing you and saying you were. And I was also saying that there was nothing wrong with it, if that was the case...

                      I will admit, just because you don't find it normal doesn't mean you are uncomfortable with your sexuality -- but some people are, and that was merely my point. I did not intend to insult you, and I apologize if you took it that way.

                      The only thing I would disagree with you on in that last post is that it is comparable to doing something, be it a hobby or whatever, that isn't normal to you. I accept that you disagree with that, though and I respect your right to your opinions, too.

    15. hookedhuntress profile image60
      hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago

      Rad,we actually don't know that it isn't a personal choice.That really has not been proven either way.

      I just know that people shouldn't try to use anything as an excuse to spew hatred toward anyone else.

      We are commanded to love each other.We aren't commanded to understand each other.

      We are really talking about whether someone who is homosexual can be a Christian not whether or not we can prove they can't help it.

      My stance is that that term "gay Christian" is a bit of an misnomer.

      The person that is actively living a gay "lifestyle" would be walking contrary to the teachings of the Bible in which a Christian is supposed to adhere to.


      The person that is actively living a murderous "lifestyle",a lying "lifestyle",a thieving "lifestyle",a "lifestyle" of premarital or extramarital sex would also be walking contrary to the Bible.

      1. jdflom profile image85
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hooked, I know several gay people very well and it's very clear to me after long conversations with them that it is not a choice. Much like being heterosexual isn't a choice for me and I'm sure not for you either. You just are.

        I can understand why that is up for debate though, so know I am not trying to tell you you're wrong, just that I disagree based on what I have witnessed.

        I do like what you have to say about not using anything as an excuse to spew hate and to love each other though. That's a very peaceful sentiment. smile

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well I guess we should just throw out half the priest then? Does not Christian mean Christ like. If you were told heterosexuality was a sin would you change teams? Be real.
        Let's not forget that the bible also condones rape, murder and slavery, but most of us don't.

        1. hookedhuntress profile image60
          hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Rad, I am game for throwing out the priests  because I don't agree with most of them either. lol

          Christian means follower of Christ.Christians believe Jesus is the Christ.
          Technically,I don't think I even have a "team" as it were. 

          I suppose I would be asexual.I am living my life for God.I'm not married nor do I seek to be.I remain abstinent by choice.(not that you really wanted to know any of that about me)

          I choose to not be with anyone and if I can do that so can others.

          I can choose not to be with a man or a woman..saying I have no choice can really be a bit of an excuse,don't you think?

          1. jdflom profile image85
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You can choose not to be with anyone, but if you were to decide to date, you would know if you wanted to date men, women or both (bisexual); and that wouldn't be a choice unless you forced that choice upon yourself. You'd be risking going against your instinct though.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, I don't think there is a difference between acting on our urges and suppressing them when it becomes to what we really are. Legally, yes. I see the difference, but there are too many fundamentals that have gotten caught with the hands in the cookie jar so to speak.
            I personally am not tempted by homosexuality and have a hard time understanding the desire, but do understand my own desires and to say that anyone can switch team is ridiculous to say the least.

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's like saying a druggie can't quit...

              Desire is desire..

              smile

              1. jdflom profile image85
                jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Vector, c'mon, you can't relate a chemical addiction to homosexuality. Those are completely different desires. One is inherent, and one is built from chemicals. Also, one is completely safe in general terms and the other has a high chance of leading to death.

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I'm trying to point out the obvious and stay out of lengthy clutter..

                  But I'm biting this one. lol

                  Everything we do is because of chemicals, including sex. You have sex more often, and your body begins making more chemicals that promote sex. It builds momentum, and this is called feeding a 'habit'.

                  And sex IS addictive. People have serious problems because of sexual addictions, and I don't see how everyone misses these points. [Tried to avoid sounding like mr knowitall, but hey..]

                  I've had an issue with fighting off sexual urges since I began in porn long, long ago as a teen. Though I don't do what I used to, these things affect you, and homosexuality is no different.

                  And homosexual activity is NOT safe.. lol

                  I've been around lots of seriously active gay people WHO ADMIT THEMSELVES they have physical problems because of it.

                  Some even state they "know it isn't normal" and these are the people DOING it...

                  I personally like many gay people as they are usually aware of judgemental attitude's effects and try to not judge others and attempt to be understanding of others.. And in that we agree on most subjects overlapping.

                  But they know I don't endorse what they do as okay. I'm not judging them.


                  This also drops down to belief in God. For if you deny God, then you can change everything..

                  So I'm not getting too deep here, because I can see the future replies already. [isn't hard is it? isn't for me...]

                  smile

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, Lesbian sex is statistically safer than heterosexual sex. Oh... you meant gay MEN... which is really what people have the problem with.  God apparently is sexist too since even if the bible does mean homosexuality (which it doesn't) it doesn't say ANYTHING about woman laying with women.

                    I guess even God's sexuality was threatened by gay men... unless he is as much as a hypocrite as your general bible thumping homophobe.  Maybe he too watches lesbian porn while condemning homosexuality.

                    1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                      WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      The Bible mentions this. Read the first chapter of Romans, and you will find out why people do such things.

                  2. jdflom profile image85
                    jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    To some people, yes, sex is addictive. I am of course referring to sex addicts or nymphomaniacs. I agree with you that there is a chemical release with sex,

                    For me and most people I know or have met, it's no different than anticipating a movie that's coming out -- Yeah, I might want it instantly, but if I miss it in theaters, I'll live. I can control my urges. I think it's necessary though for a healthy relationship, but that's just my own opinion on relationships.

                    And calling it not normal is a loaded question... Do they mean it to be not normal because it isn't within the majority? I could say that albinos aren't normal... but does that mean there is something wrong with them? In that case, yeah, homosexuality isn't normal, but there isn't a negative connotation to it in that context suggesting it's wrong. Semantics and context play a major role in calling it normal or not. I would even go as far as to say, "well homosexuality is normal in society, but not normal for me since I have no desire to be with another man."

                    With all things in life, Everything can cause physical problems. Poor example, but example nonetheless -- I sometimes walk with a limp when the numbness acts up in my leg from the affects of my chemo treatments. It's a physical problem, but that's just part of life. I chose to go through with the chemo because I knew it was what I needed to continue living and to be happy. I would argue that homosexuals need to what they need to do to be happy.

                    And yeah, getting into denying god and changing everything is probably for another topic since this is specifically about Christianity. But, as I did say earlier in a different post somewhere I think (there's a lot here now), there are some Christians who condone homosexuality in their interpretation of the bible. So it's not just about denying a belief in god that postulates the thoughts of homosexuality as a sin or not.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well sure, you can join the priest hood, but we all know how that turns out. How many women married some guy that thought he could contain his homosexuality and ended up with a horrible divorce? You can try to not act on it, but the desire is still there. And it's not just sexually, it's wanting to not be alone, wanting to be loved.

    16. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      Oh HELL no!
      There is a good reason' there's no 12 Step program for homosexuality.
      It's not an addiction. It's not a disease.
      It is a perfectly natural and for some people normal form of sexual expression and identity.

      Give that it's Holy Thursday this is a bit heretical, but I'll say it:
      What if one (or more) of the 12 apostles was gay. I am sure if one looked for a homoerotic interpretation in the Bible it's findable.
      I'm thinking Peter myself...

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not a Biblical scholar I'm guessing? [sarcasm here] lol

        Your assertion is not only sad because you stated outright you didn't do your homework before claiming such a stretched idea, but did it about something that plenty are knowledgeable the notion is utterly false.

        I guess we could say you have gay tendencies because you are defending the position they hold?

        My above statement is the equivalent of your post...



        And anything involving pleasure is exactly what you said it is not. Especially if it is damaging to one's bodily structure and functions and they continue pursuing it. (natural yes?)

        Psychology studies might help you out in that area of knowledge. [no sarcasm here]

        [nice profile, btw. honest]

        smile

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Now here's another argument altogether - not a Biblical one, since, let's be honest, your Biblical "case" against homosexuality is easily disproven if you use the original text and not King James's translation.

          So you're arguing that homosexuality is dangerous to bodily function. Hmmmm... That makes some easily disprovable assumptions about what all gay people and all straight people do in the bedroom.

          What you continue to ignore is that G-d wants man to have companionship, and that gays and lesbians can only find meaningful, loving relationships in a partner of the same gender.

          You have an oddly pharisaic adherence to your interpretation of Biblical law even when a more fundamental one is being violated by doing so. Is that because bashing gay people is an easy, painless way for a straight man to feel devout?

          1. hookedhuntress profile image60
            hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            livelonger,

            Wow,really accusing someone of gay bashing?This thread is in the Christianity forum and is discussing whether or not a gay person can be a Christian.

            Your use of the "G-d" instead of God clearly shows that you do not hold Christian beliefs.

            Your belief and Christian beliefs are not the same and would clearly clash but to throw accusations around because we don't belief as you do is immature don't you think.

            I find it exhausting to participate in the forums here any more.

            People from different faiths or from no faith at all feel the need to come into a clearly defined Christian forum merely to  BASH  their every post.
            People that aren't gay and clearly not even of the Christian faith.

            You guys keep coming to the Christian forums to declare how wrong we are and then start disseminating your own NON Christian beliefs as truth and right.

            Christians do not believe the same as everybody else.Christians do NOT believe as you do, livelonger..and there for we(Christians) could NOT agree with you.

            This forum thread is not about everyone converging to argue many different beliefs ,it is about homosexuals and Christianity...It is not about gay Atheist,or Jewish homosexuals,or gay Hebrew roots adherents.

            Everyone has every right to believe and live how they wish and people can certainty   post whatever, where ever they would like(obviously). 

            This thread is not for arguing different beliefs but for discussing  Christian beliefs and what the Bible WE read says about gay Christians.

            Where are the forum police when you need them.They just let this whole place run amuck.

            1. jdflom profile image85
              jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I just want to point out that livelonger started this thread...  that is all.

            2. livelonger profile image91
              livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's true I'm not a Christian. I can read, though, and have made a much more concerted effort at understanding what the Bible says about homosexuality than your average Bible-thumping Christian. And it's Christians of several different flavors, at least in this country, that foment most of the anti-gay bigotry that we see today.

              I did start this thread and if you don't like having your posts, or the posts of those who you sympathize with, challenged, then you can go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to weigh in with your opinion. But as it stands, it's an open forum.

              I do think you have a lot of chutzpah to speak on behalf of all Christians and define a Christian viewpoint on homosexuality. Melissa and many other devout Christians have a very different viewpoint. But I've seen stranger things, I guess.

              1. hookedhuntress profile image60
                hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe I do have chutzpah(lol) but the rules apply even to the ones that started the thread.BTW,I didn't make those rules either.

                I personally cannot agree with anyone's  anti-gay bigotry agenda.

                I have  not claimed to speak for all Christians but thank you for claiming to speak for me. LOL

                I have made it clear in  posts to say this is my opinion,this what I think,I believe...no where have I claimed to speak for everyone.

                So now because we don't agree you are going to tell me where I can or cannot post..That is really funny.

                That is true,it is an open forum that you are trying to close to only those that agree with you, that is hilarious.

                The forum rules state that we are to stay on topic and people are going all over the place arguing everything but the topic.

                Oh, so I get now, the purpose behind you posting this thread was to BASH Christians..my apologies...I thought this was an open honest debate but I see you had a hidden agenda.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't feel bashed... maybe you are taking someone disagreeing with you a bit too personally... There is another poster around here that does the same thing.  Maybe you know her?

                2. livelonger profile image91
                  livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  big_smile I admit I'm not a fan of Bible thumpers, and if you go back to the original post, you'll see the article I reference was about a woman's transformation from a Bible thumper who was harming her child, to a non-Bible thumper. She remained Christian throughout, because there are Christians of all varieties.

                  If we really lived in a "live and let live" world where people could hold homophobic beliefs but not carry them into the political spheres (much less to abuse their children with them), then I would not feel the need to bring the topic up whatsoever.

            3. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Steady on HH, when you say "Christians do NOT believe as you do, livelonger..and there for we(Christians) could NOT agree with you", I hope you don't presume to speak for me. Livelonger appears to me to have the greater credibility on this argument; he has studied the scriptures to show himself as one approved, not just read a dodgy English translation.

            4. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              hookedhuntress, if you believe for one minute that you can have a christian Hub, discussing a biased and self-righteous attitude to "gay christians" without gay people wanting to get in on the discussion, you can think again!

              Are you one of these people who believes if you are one of the "chosen 144,000" you will get to heaven, and all the others can go to hell?

              Would you please let us know how you relate to the idea of unconditional love?  Does it allow selfishness.  (Just noticed a funny re-spelling would be "shell-fish-ness."  Pretty appropriate if what I am putting to you is in the affirmative.)

            5. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is interesting, hookedhuntress, that you have admitted that this thread is about deciding whether or not a gay person "can" be a christian. Might I ask, is that your decision to make? In fact, who should ultimately make that decision?

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          if we're going down the route that gay sex is unnatural because it can cause to harm to bodily function, then, wouldn't we have to argue the same case for hetro-sex. By that I mean, do  virgins contract cervical cancer? Has it not been established by the medical profession that semen causes cervical cancer (I'd say that's pretty harmful to bodily function) and in many cases death?

          1. gaeparks profile image84
            gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am sorry but I cannot fund any proof that semen causes cervical cancer and the article you sited in that later post is rather dated don't you think.

            1. jdflom profile image85
              jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I googled "cervical cancer" and this was the very first website; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealt … ase.causes

              here's an excerpt, "Almost all cervical cancers are caused by HPV (human papilloma virus). HPV is a common virus that is spread through sexual intercourse. There are many different types of HPV. Some strains lead to cervical cancer. (Other strains may cause genital warts, while others do not cause any problems at all.)"

              How hard did you look?

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you scroll down and read my response to your other comments, Gaeparks, you will find the link detailing how the British Medical council have also discovered links between cervical cancer and a hormone contained within semen. Either way, when discussing the HPV virus or a hormone in semen, hetro-sex can undoubtedly cause harm to female bodily function.

              1. gaeparks profile image84
                gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Again...they why are there millions and millions of women with cervical cancer. many many many women are having sex and being "exposed" to semen. Women should be dropping by the millions and cervical cancer should be running rampant based on what you are saying. I just cannot see where that data can be even remotely accurate. Now...if the man whom a woman has sex with is diseased and she developes HPV as a result...that is not the result of semen...that is the result of sleeping with an unhealthy person. How can any biologist come up with such a conclusion is beyond me...but then like I was told mant times...if one is looking one can find.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's like saying that if smoking causes cancer then everyone who smoked would die as a result of cancer, or if alcohol damaged the liver then everyone who drank alcohol would die from liver disease. Now, if you find and read the study and found flaws in the research, your comments would carry much more weight. As it stands, you are merely suggesting that you disagree with the research, based purely on YOUR OPINION and sweeping generalisations, just because this study does not strengthen your argument, but weakens it, considerably.

                  The research, btw, was conducted by the British Medical Council, not some poorly qualified, fly by night graduate who might, unethically, I might add, base their conclusions on what they wanted to see, rather than the evidence itself.

                  1. jdflom profile image85
                    jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Very well said, Hollie.

                    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Why thank you, jdflom. smile

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Now...if the man whom a woman has sex with is diseased and she developes HPV as a result...that is not the result of semen...that is the result of sleeping with an unhealthy person.

                  The more I've read your post the more convinced I am that you haven't read the article from the other link I pasted. This particular article discusses the relationship between cervical cancer and a hormone found in semen, not the HPV virus.

    17. hookedhuntress profile image60
      hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago

      The apostles were not sinless.They were not perfect just like we are not perfect.

      1. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        hookedhuntress...you are correct the apostles were not sinless...they were not perfect...and we are not perfect either. The apostles were human witnesses to a divine set of events that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made an account of those events that they personally witnessed. The Word of God says that "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." That means every person to include the apostles have sinned and are not perfect. So you are correct...but that does not bely the fact that what they said or accounted to have happened and what they have done in the name of Jesus are not all true...because they are all true.

    18. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      There are only three choices in this matter.  The first is that God loves everyone and everything everyone does is absolutely wonderful.  The second choice is that God loves everyone and hates the sin they commit. The third choice is that God loves those who keep His commandments.

      If God loved everyone and the things they do, He would not have given a set of laws for man to obey.

      If God loves everyone and hates the sin, He would have told people that He loves them and given a law that specifically defines the sins he hates. (right wing Christian theology)So Jesus shows everyone that God loves them and says He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

      And the third fact is that if God did not love the sinner no one would be saved.  Therefore, God loves everyone and hates the things they do.

      Now if you are really bothered about the right wing Christian, you might be bothered by the God who has declared in His word the same belief. 

      Do you have a better explanation for us?

      Clearly God loves the homosexual and hates what he does. At least the Bibles declares it that way.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why god go about voyering? Isn't that a sexual perversion?

        1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
          WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you mock God in Eastern Block English?

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Cause I don't speak Russian!

            1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
              WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are struggling too much for an MD and a college professor. Why god no go to you school and learn good? You smart! You teach god real good to be smart.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                When you are here to correct, why should I bother?
                Unlike your god(whatever that is) I don't peep, to see what people do behind closed doors!

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  God doesn't need to peep. You will have an experience with this God that you mock.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Because I don't do what your god do?
                    By the same token,(if you are Christian) I might be an adulterer too, for I don't impregnate others betrothed, and you too(an adulterer), if you don't do it.

                    1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                      WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Are you sure you want to do this? You are fumbling all over the place. I do not to want this to be no fun to for you. As you skill at English debate done be lacking. I not want to be impregnated by you, or you me. Get my drift, pardner?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ha ha ha ha ha. Made ma laugh. Thanks. Are you saying you'd do it in German, Italian and French if you could?

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile Gladly. God should be of some use other than judging fellow humans!

                1. jdflom profile image85
                  jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

    19. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      Disappearinghead,

      The definition of an apostle is "one sent out."  The Lord Jesus Christ sends them; therefore, Paul is an apostle sent out by Jesus.  The Disciples learned at the feet of the Master and were later called apostles when they were sent out. Sense Paul did not meet Jesus until the Damascous road, you conclude that he never knew Jesus.  But according to his testamony, he knew Jesus as well or better than many know Him,

      And when you limit scripture to Hebrew, you nulify the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Of course that is the difference between the Jew and the Christian. And yes, people are free to disagree with any scripture or any Christian writing. 

      The traditions of women wearing hats and men have long haor is an excellent examply why people disagree about the writings.  They misintrepret them.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who is going to decide who interpreted correctly and who did it incorrectly?

        1. jdflom profile image85
          jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Excellent question.

        2. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          God.

          He judges your heart.

          If you were selfish or not.

          If you wanted to do good [his way] or change it for personal gain [your way].

          It's ultimately up to yourself to be sure you are searching for God when you are trying to understand it.

          It doesn't need interpretation, that's already been done.

          It doesn't speak verbatim or direct.




          He teaches through meaning.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As judged by you. You seem to say God and God only judges, but you are telling us how you think he judges. Some critical thinking is in order.  Don't look to the bible to tell you what to think about homosexuality or anything else. What if god changes his mind? What if you were mislead by your bible or your interpretation of the bible? As I said before the bible says a lot of things that we know is simply not right.
            Perhaps God wants you to think for yourself. What's right. Respect for your fellow human or judging him for his homosexuality?

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is this not about Christianity of which the doctrine comes from the Holy Bible?

              Quit trying to spin-off for leverage.

              God, by The  Bible, never changes.

              I have millions of people who agree with me, I'm not making this stuff up - it was here 2 THOUSAND YEARS before I got here and that's only the New Testament [with Christ]...

              Blah, blah, blah.. Not right to you, duhh.. you AREN'T a Christian..

              I don't judge anyone, I tell them what the Bible says. It isn't a riddle book if you don't try to twist it. If they don't like it's teachings, they have the choice...

              You're chasing your tail and wasting my time and thread space.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not all christians think like you. Not all christians believe in the literal word of the bible. Catholics make up a pretty big percentage of Christianity and they don't believe in the literal word of the bible and they have worked evolution into there teachings. You still need to ask yourself what is right and what is wrong regardless of what it says in the bible. Using the bible to influence government policies because of your interpretation of the bible would bring us back to the middle ages. We don't get our moral compass from the bible, nor should we. We get our moral compass from the society we live in. Lets not fill our society with hatred and bigotry.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                    WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    cool

                2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If someone takes the bible literally, it should be a threat to no one, only a blessing. Please, forgive me for falling short. Where do we go from here? What can I do to help?

                  I believe music is a good place to start. I will jam with anybody. Here's some stuff my friends in Florida did in the late sixties. You think California had good acid? Try some from FSU or Gainesville.

                  http://youtu.be/hdmyY4MTwHc

                  I know my way around. Bring your argumentation here, and leave the babies alone.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Forgive me WD Curry, but I think going back to the middle ages with heresy charges and with the churches inquisitions are a serious threat. If you need to see what a country looks like when they rule by religion have a look at Iran. Iran has itself convinced they have no gays. There laws dictate that going against the teaching of the Koran is punishable by death. Take the case of the Canadian that traveled by to Iran and once there was charged to promoting pornography because his software was used by a pornographic site. He is scheduled for death.

                    If you think Christianity is any different when governing a society just look at the Inquisitions of the middle ages.

                    It should be a threat to all when any religion puts there religious views ahead of our governmental laws. As I've said before (this upsets Vector) but, the bible condones slavery, rape and murder and hatred towards homosexuality. We know these things are wrong, but have been used to enslave and kill. I don't take this lightly.

                    1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                      WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      >Excuse me, for all of my claims, I am an ignorant man. I only wan't us to find common ground. It is fruitlessness for us to stand in opposition, when all we really want is common ground. I love you just as you are, but you don't seem ready to receive it.

                    2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                      WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Hey, I never claimed to be perfect. Let's find common ground!

      2. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who decided Paul's letters were scripture? Paul? No, he'd consider that blasphemy. God? No, none of Paul's letters state " thus sayeth the Lord". Who then? The Church by committee, that's who. Who gave them the authority? Nobody.

        The NT is useful, don't get me wrong. We take Jesus words seriously and can form doctrine from them. But Paul? We can acct that what he wrote was a matter of his opinion.

      3. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don. Who decided Paul's letters were scripture, and when? Was it Paul? No. God? No. A catholic Church committee? Yes.

        Thus we cannot form doctrines from them. I've never suggested dismissing the gospels, we should take note of Jesus words and from doctrine if necessary. But Paul was expressing his own opinions.

        What is there to misinterpret about silly hats and long hair? And for the record, I'm a Christian.

        1. gaeparks profile image84
          gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Disappearinghead...Nicaea was no Catholic Church Committee...and the Canon of Scripture was no simple meeting with opinionated bias. There were some very strict and balanced standards by which Scripture were canonized. Please do further research?

          1. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There were very many opinions about which books constituted cannon. some bishops rejected Jude, 2 & 3 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation for example. The decisions about what constituted cannon appear to have been decided by who they believed the author to be. If was believed to be an apostle it was in, if not an apostle it was out. From what I have researched, the decisions had little to do with content.

            Further it was Iraeneus to decided that there would be four gospels. He stated that there cannot be more than 4 or less than 4. His logic was that here were 4 corners to the Earth, 4 winds, and 4 living creatures around the throne. Thus any other candidate gospel was excluded irrespective of what its content might be.

            Nevertheless, it was man made decisions based on the majority opinion. My view stands, that letters written by Paul or apostles to the churches do not necessarily scripture make.

            1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
              WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't automatically disqualify them.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am not disqualifying them, I'm merely stating that they are not necessarily scripture just because that was the majority view 1700 years ago. We are free to disagree with what Paul wrote for example. After all the church already does this with regards to women being silent in churches, being leaders, and having to wear silly hats.

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Dang! How can I argue with that?

                  Although, if you have ever been to an AME Church in the South or a Jamaican Church . . . the hats are off the hook! They kind of make the day for me. Dinner is the coup de gras. Meanwhile, the whole experience is a drop of the taste of heaven.

                  If you are a wise person, you will not argue this case!

                  http://youtu.be/Iblfvzn7Rc8

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Groovy! smile

    20. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @jonniecomelately.
      I am confused as to why you directed you comment to me.  My comments about the subject of homosexuality are based on Biblical interpretation.  I neither hate nor judge homosexuals. Neither do I hate nor judge thieves, adulterers, liars, or anyone else. Neither am I required to respect them. Respect is earned based on the integrity of a person. Once again, it becomes obvious God love the sinner and hates the sin.

      Notice it is God who loves, and man who tries to destroy the knowlege of God.  Exactly what Paul writes.  But when people reach out to God, He forgives them.  But people will not reach out to God if they do not believe He exists or if they prefer the live of sin. Therefore, God loves them but not the things they do.

      It is your relationship with God that determins your relationship with Christians. John tells us that we have fellowship with the father; therefore, we have fellowship with each other.

      People associate with each other because they have common ideas and beliefs. That is a eneral rule, and there may be exceptions.

      Nut no one has to respect anyone until that person has earned it. That too is God's wprd.

      1. gaeparks profile image84
        gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don...i agree with your words and stand with you on the same premise...Bigups brother.

      2. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree as well and stand behind you.

        Biblically sound doctrine.

    21. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

      Who said cervical cancer is caused by sex?

      1. lorlie6 profile image86
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good question, DD! lol

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'll find a link for you. Some years ago, when researchers were looking for a causal link to cervical cancer, they undertook some research involving nuns, amongst other women (don't laugh) Cervical cancer was none existant in nuns (at the present time, and historically) From there (as I say I'll find the link for you) further research concluded that semen (or some by-product) was linked to the disease.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. gaeparks profile image84
            gaeparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hollie Thomas...I have read that article. And because I have discovered that people on this site are ultra-sensitive and I can get in trouble with the site if I say certain things so I will be careful. That article says nothing about cervical cancer being caused by sperm...wow what an outdated research from the 1950's. Can you imagine how many women would have servical cancer if it was caused by sperm? And the fact that only 13,000 nuns were tested...what a small test group? And if I can remember the very short article it simply referenced that women with many sexual partners or a woman with only one partner can contract HPV if that person already has the virus and that is along with poor diet, smoking, and the weakened immune system of the woman. Really Hollie...sperm causes cervical cancer? ok

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Gaeparks,

              Firstly, if you feel that my post was offensive in someway then please, feel free to say what you please. I won't report you. I believe in freedom of speech. I have noted your post and would like to respond as follows.

              1. You are correct, that article says nothing about cervical cancer being caused by sperm. There are, however, other studies that suggest that it is. You will find the relevant information here.

              http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5303054.stm

              2. I didn't include this link for fear of taking the Livelonger's thread of topic. Nevertheless, you are quite right to ask for some evidence. Really gaeparks, you shouldn't be quite so sarcastic without viewing the evidence first. smile

              3. Did I mention that this was a very old study? I think I did, scroll up. I didn't mention the size of the sample, however. My mistake, I think  that I assumed that anybody reading that article, and noting my comments about how dated it was, would be intelligent enough to work out that I was saying the research was flawed, but nonetheless important.

              4. Poor diet, smoking and a weakened immune system are at least contributers, and frequently causes of cancer (along with genetics) However, and I'm sure you are aware of this, once researchers have identified that particular characteristics are present within the onset of disease, but also establish that some sufferers of said disease did not smoke, have a poor diet, a relative who suffered from the same condition, or a weakend immune system, they begin to look for other links. I guess that's the nature of the inquisitive mind of the scientist. smile

              5. Like I said, this is a very old study but important in terms of later discoveries leading from that research. Go figure.

        2. lorlie6 profile image86
          lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Hollie, I just want to say that even some nuns may not have been celibate their entire lives, I don't know, but imagine so.
          Good point though, and I look forward to the links!

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi lorlie6,

            I think you're right. That was a very old study, but probably important in terms of the discoveries it led to, which concluded that it was highly unlikely that virgins would contract the disease. (trust me to end up going completely off topic here)lol

            1. lorlie6 profile image86
              lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think so, Hollie-you're right ON topic!  smile

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, Lorlie6.

                1. lorlie6 profile image86
                  lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Pleasure's all mine, Hollie!
                  smile

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine prevents infection with certain species of human papillomavirus associated with the development of cervical cancer, genital warts, and some less common cancers.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Radman, forgive me, but I'm completely missing your point, here. Could you expand on this?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I was just answering an older post. Someone was arguing that even heterosexuals have there diseases  that is inherent only to heterosexuality. And they were right. Cervical cancer, it turns out is primarily caused by the HPV virus. We have vaccines for HPV and in some parts of the world grade school girls and boys are given the vaccine to prevent the spread of HPV and in turn cervical cancer

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My mistake, it's 11pm here, and my brain's frazzled. smile I believe the person arguing that case would be me. smile

    22. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @DoubleScorpion

      Paul's writing did not require women to wear hats.  That is the basic misinterpretation of thumpers.  Not scholors

    23. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @Disappearinghead

      I would assume that Paul would say that Scripture was in the old Testament.  The Gospel is in the New Testament.  It would appear that Paul was something of an apostle because the Holy Spirit was working in him.  And that is exactly why Jesus was different from the other religionists.  He said that he did the things that the His Father told him to do.  Should that not qualify as a very close relationship?  Did Paul not have a very close relationship with the Father.  And why is it any different today?  It isn't.  Christianity is a relationship--not a religion.

    24. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago

      "Biblically sound doctrine..."   but only what some humans consider to be sound doctrine.  One against the other.   Still only human-based.  Still not requiring the existence of a "god" out there.  Only dependent on what you want to believe.

      "God, by The  Bible, never changes."  Rubbish!  Of course He, It, She, whatever changes according to your every whim of emotional need.  The paintings, statues, poetry, hymns, carols, all try to convey some kind of image as perceived from scripture.  Even the "morality" perceived from ancient teachings in the bible gets changed over time.  "Why?"  Because there was no god to write it.  Only the human mind through the medium of the human hand.

      Believe what you want, Victor, you don't fool me.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Settle down, brother. God is not the problem.

        http://youtu.be/38LmeqHHW2w

      2. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well.. my goodness..

        I didn't think I posted any of that your way.

        I already knew your stance, but uh..

        I'm not the only one here saying these things.

        I guess I should feel privilaged.

        smile

    25. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @Disappearinghead. 
      Do you suppose that God might have determined which books were included in the Bible? I would think that if we read the entire Bible, we would have to conclude that God is on His throne, and is also in control of many historical events.  Unless you believe in coincidence, you would have to conclude that the Bible is telling us pretty much what has happened and what will happen. At least, that is the way I see it.

    26. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

      Besides the whole cervical cancer thing, let's not forget the women who die from childbirth/childbearing related issues each year.  But even without the whole death factor then you have to consider the incidents of vaginal injury due to normal heterosexual sex.  I personally don't know a woman who hasn't been torn at some point.  But I guess that doesn't matter because the injuries  sustained by gay MEN (once again lesbian sex is the safest) mean that God disapproves and it is unnatural while the injuries sustained by women during heterosexual sex are part of God's plan and therefore are good and right.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image81
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh, but the childbirth thing was Eve's punishment!! Of course there will be women who suffer and die from it, silly!

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Amen, Melissa.

    27. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago

      Chris, you used this expression.  I ask you, is this the real focus?  Is this what all the anti-homosexual stance is all about?  If so, would you care to give me your understanding of what "Heaven" is?

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think there will be dogs there, but no cats.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          hooray

          1. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then get into the study of "Cat-astrophy!"

    28. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

      What's the real issue here? Do those who believe that homosexual sex is an abomination reason that the problem is men having sex with men or the fact that it's anal sex? Do they believe that anal sex between husband and wife is ok but between men is not?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not all specifically homosexual men do it.  Some specifically heterosexual men do do it. 

        So obviously not part of the definition, and one more reason the anti- group should not need to worry their heads about the subject.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What is this obsession with how gay men have sex? Please, why does it have to come down to this? Gay men and gay women have relationships, just like straight men and women, the majority of times sex is only a part of that, a part which often gets smaller as they relationship progresses. Is it just me, or are some straight people obsessed with the sex lives of others?

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I've been staying out of the topic, in spite of the feed "feeding" me every post submitted.

            But is it not obvious that humans are sexual creatures and that wild animals don't have this problem. [they only mate with the appropriately designed opposite sex]

            And I'm sorry, but no. Sex is what put everyone on the planet where they are (no thanks to homosexuals) If my parents were homo I would not be alive.

            Obsessed? It's kinda of a limited requirement so I'm not sure why it is ongoingly discussed as if a mystery.

            Homosexual men know and admit they use their colon as a vagina, and gay women know and openly admit they use fake male genetalia.

            It is the major point as it denotes an obvious abnormality and denial of personal born parts.

            Men do not have vaginas and so misappropriate their colon to appeal to their non-fitting attraction.

            Women do not have penises and therefore do not have the required tools for full intercourse without artificial help. [artificial is your key here]

            And I have had many male friends I was very close to and loved them very much as a person, without once having to have sex with them.

            This IS what makes them GAY is THE SEX. It is an abnormal act due to their bodies not being appropriate to fit accordingly.


            It's not normal. If it were then Mr Buck would be chasing around Mr Buck instead of Ms Buck.

            No other species has this problem. (please don't refer to captive animals)

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              HUH?

              But is it not obvious that humans are sexual creatures and that wild animals don't have this problem. [they only mate with the appropriately designed opposite sex]

              Seriously, you appear to know very little about nature and wild animals. Quite telling that you appropriate gay men and women with wild animals, though.

              Having read the rest of your post, and deciding that you appear to have taken either a)  some mind altering substance that has left you devoid of any ability to reason, or formulate any sensible argument fit for human consumption.

              or B) You are one of life's unfortunates who can only think in terms of bitterness, hatred and judgementalism.

              I have now decided that I feel very sorry for you and hope you overcome this affliction very soon.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you but no thank you.

                And please stop the childish act of making this about me.

                I am not alone in that statement, and your reply is the very reason I've hesitated to post at all.

                Get off your horse there little miss princess. I'm a little sick of 'royal' people walking around the threads like they 'deem' people this and that.

                I've had MANY homosexual friends that I love very much, so if you will - get back on topic and quit turning toward me.

                And I'm sorry to tell you, but drugs are not a hobby for me, and slandering people because they disagree is childish.

                Compare them to wild animals? Half the people in this thread believe in evolution....

                You really should get off that horse miss....

                It's aggrevating when people start attacking character personally.

                I think I'll take this as a lesson to steer clear of such topics as people can't keep from accusing people of doing drugs.


                How very appropriate and noble..

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What's with the little princess comment? What exactly do you mean by that? I actually think it's quite funny that you accuse others of "deeming" people this or that, when you compare other human beings to wild animals because their bodies are not appropriate to fit accordingly, whatever that means?

                  I wasn't making this about you. You were making this about you, when you suggested that you had resisted posting to this thread, despite the "feed" having "fed" you. Poor you, the temptation must have been overwhelming.

                  Obsessed? It's kinda of a limited requirement so I'm not sure why it is ongoingly discussed as if a mystery.

                  What's that supposed to mean? Obsession, a limited requirement? you make absolutely no sense at all. If you are obsessed with the sex life of another, you need help. Seriously. No mystery.

                  What do you mean by "royal" people, exactly?

                  And, btw, if you are unable to communicate logically, to put forward an argument that has no rhyme or reason and makes no sense whatsoever, then some are bound to think that you have no clue what you are talking about, or perhaps have limited control of all your faculties. Your problem, not mine.

                  It's aggrevating when people start attacking character personally. Yeah, perhaps this is how gay men and women feel?

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Have you not read where I said I have gay friends?

                    I think the misunderstanding is yours, not mine.

                    Where have I attacked gay men or women Ms Thomas?

                    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You have called gay men and women abnormal. You haven't "suggested" that they are abnormal, you've just come out and said it. That's an attack on them personally. You can hide behind the "I have gay friends" comment all you wish, but you have inferred that you are "normal" because you are straight and that they are "abnormal" because they are gay. Therefore, suggesting that they are somehow "inferior" to you. Can you honestly not see how your comments might be deemed as a personal attack?

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, never have and I've likely been involved with more women than you.  You've got some serious misconceptions about lesbian sex... and likely gay sex as well.  SOME gay women use "fake male genitalia"... of course many straight women and couples do as well.  You are using the lesbian pron stereotype that most people who don't actually KNOW anything about lesbian sex (or really female biology) use.

              For many women vaginal orgasm is rare and achieved only with great patience.  The majority of woman orgasm only through clitoral stimulation either directly or -more likely- the accidental stimulation that comes from other parts of the male anatomy rubbing against the area during sex.  Therefore "fake male genitalia" are largely useless during lesbian sex.  That also means that the real thing is also largely useless for orgasm in heterosexual sex.  Sorry.  "God" designed women the same way as he designed men... our sexual stimulation is largely exterior... no penetration needed.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You very well may have indeed been involved with more women than me.

                Rather the point was still made no matter if you drag out nit-picky details or not.

                I don't need your personal details on female sexual preferences Ms Barrett, and find that a little useless.

                Some people get their jollies from feet, balloons, and getting beat until bleeding.

                Just because it arouses them does not change the relative abnornality to the original stimulation which is procreative sex.

                I'm sure you have some form of detailed explanation, but I'm hoping I can exit.

                Not only this, but I don't hate or dislike gay people, and have gay friends.

                But I will tell them the same and they agree, just like I've said plenty, they cannot do so and claim to be adhering to Biblical Christian doctrine.

                I know you have your "personal" touch to the scriptures.

                But they do not promote or allow homosexuality, or any sin in direct rebellion irregardless if you think so or not.

                I have had issues and still do with many sins, but I don't wallow in them. I try to do what pleases the good Lord, my God.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wasn't commenting on your feelings towards Gay people.  Personally, I don't really care how you feel about it or how you think God feels about it.  I would have to respect your opinion to care whether or not you hated me and why.  I would have to think you knowledgeable about my religion to care whether you think God would consider me a sinner or not.  As you are not of my faith then your rules don't really matter to me nor do they affect my relationship with God or Jesus.

                  I was just pointing out that you seem to know very little about lesbianism, which is ironic since you seem to be so strong opposed to it.  I was making my observations from a point of view that is far more knowledgeable about the subject than you are. (Unless you are a lesbian... then I digress I guess) I was also pointing out that you seem to be lacking in knowledge about how normal female sexual response works.  Everything I stated in my post relates to MOST women... not fetishes or abnormal.  I am sorry you were unaware.  Consider it information that might come in handy one day while you are having sex for procreation only.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hollie, I'm not interested in how gay sex works; I'm just trying to understand what the issue is with those who are anti-gay. It's not enough just to quote a bible verse and say that's it; a rational root explanation is required.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I get that Disappearinghead smile It just amazes me that the anti-gay lobby, once they have finished quoting scriptures, cannot move away from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship and accept that sex is often just the extension of a loving relationship.

          3. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, from a Biblical perspective of course, any sex between anyone other than a husband and wife is forbidden.

            From a human perspective, people are fascinated by something that is so "other." And no matter how you slice it, relationships notwithstanding, gay relationships are "other" to a lot of straight people.

            If it wasn't that, it would be something else.

            And yes, some straight people are obsessed with the sex lives of others, it's called "gossip magazines." Although I wouldn't say all gay people are equally obsessed, gay people as a group are not immune to it.

      2. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The real issue is that some straight men are terribly sinful, and they believe that sinning will mean an eternity of punishment. So they elevate two sins to be paramount that they'll never be guilty of themselves: homosexuality and abortion. That way they conveniently feel like saints.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gosh, if only it were that simple!

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think that's a very shrewd observation on LL's part, one I hadn't previously thought of.

      3. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know whether most anti people reckon that as a major part of the problem. I think that Genesis 2:21-24 would be more germaine.

    29. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago

      Vector7, did you not read my post?  This does not define a person's sexuality. 

      Whatever happens between two persons which does not involve you, is none of your business, and does not need to be.  If it's consensual, it does not involve anyone else and is entirely the concern of the two persons involved.

      You do not have to agree. You do not have to indulge or otherwise get involved.  No one has given you the right to judge.  And it does not have to be a problem for you if you just ignore it. Turn your eyes elsewhere.

      I for one am not being hateful towards you, you are welcome to this discussion.  Put your views, there is nothing against that.  But allow me and others our right to conduct our lives as we see fit.  Please.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say they were 'banned' from doing jack.

        Why does everyone put words in my mouth?

        I stated colons aren't vaginas and plastic penises are artificial and used to replace something that seems to should have been there naturally.

        They can do whatever they please, but I'm disagreeing it's normal.

        I have gay friends that will tell you it isn't normal. [out the horse's mouth you know?]

        When did I disallow you to do anything?

        I've ignored it plenty, what about everyone else here?

        I think people are hateful because I won't keep my opinion to myself.

        I'm sorry, but I don't have to. And please stop acting like I'm telling people what to do... lol

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I must be missing something here, But Where does the colon fit into gay sex?

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Forgive me for not being 'specific' enough..

            This disturbs me slightly to have to address, but seeing as it looks to be required, I hope this is the last misunderstanding involving this subject....

            The term I should have used, though the point remains unchanged, is Rectum. And it is not a vagina, which is what gay men use it for.

            http://moiracolonicclinic.com/images/colon.jpg

            1. 0
              klarawieckposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Awww... Victor! You're talking about the colon... again??? roll

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                Klara, hows it goin? Nice photo! It's cute.

                Just doing some clarification.. ahem.. That's all.

                And rectum actually.. heh

                (you're the only one getting away with "Victor" btw - how am I doing anyway? -  I'm sure you've got a few people's gears turning. lol)

                smile

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are forgiven. It wasn't that you were being unspecific, just that you had incorrectly used the colon to demonstrate how gay couples had sex. Fr a moment there I thought you had information that the rest of us did not.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But Vector, many heterosexual couples use artificial penises together and enjoy anal sex. Do you think that is sin?

    30. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago

      @Hollie Thomas

      I would ask you why you believe that male and male sex or female and female sex are natural.  Does not nature tell you that sex is for procreation only.  Tht is unless you simply wnt to have fun. The Bible would call it lust.  That is an observation.  so tell me why Gay or Lesbian sex is natural.
      Paul uses the argument in Romans 1 that Gay and Lesbian sex are unatural.  Now that is a scientific observation 

      But you have concluded that anyone who agrees with Paul must be on some mind altering substance or fill with bitterness, hatred and judgmentalism. 

      It is obvious that anyone who disagrees with you must be judgmental because they are not as bright as you are. Really? It is obvious that you are bitter and filled with hate because someone disagrees with you.  Read your post and see what the logic is.  See if you have any reason to reach the conclusions you have reached, 

      Vector7 made an observation.  Paul made an observation.  Does that make them wrong because you disagree with their observations? If so, we can logically make the same conclusion about you that you made about vector7

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is obvious that anyone who disagrees with you must be judgmental because they are not as bright as you are. Really? It is obvious that you are bitter and filled with hate because someone disagrees with you.  Read your post and see what the logic is.  See if you have any reason to reach the conclusions you have reached, 

        When did I say I was bright and that people who disagreed with me weren't as bright?

        I'm not the one who puts myself in a position of judgement of gay men and women, that is you, is it not? I don't hate gay men and women, I do not sit sit in judgement of them, that is you, is it not? I'm not bitter and filed with hate, I do not believe that my sexuality is the right one, that is you, is it not?

        Personally, I don't care whether sex is just for procreation or not. I actually think it;s fun, too. When I have sex, it;s just for fun, whether that be with a man or women. I just do what comes naturally. So, to me, gay sex is pretty natural, too. smile

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Until you pull out a choco-lolli-pop.. [apologies, sometimes details are necessary to reveal the obvious]

          I'm sorry, but man or woman, the waste exit is not meant for "fun"..

          I don't care what you do, or anyone else for that matter.

          But irregardless who does what, homosexuality is not normal.

          It's fun to do lots of things, but they aren't all normal, and the same applies here.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The term normal is subjective. It varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. You are using the term normal because of your beliefs, yes?

            And if the "waste exit" is not meant for "fun" why does it contain hundreds on nerve endings that can make the experience of anal sex pleasurable?

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And what exactly do you mean by pulling out a choco-lollipop?

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If that isn't detailed enough I'm sorry, the spoon feeding stops there.

                I'm starting to see why this discussion is still going...

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, ok. If you cannot back up or explain your statement, I understand.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

            2. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              To your first question. No.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hang on a minute here, you have consistently stated throughout this thread that you consider gay sex, unnatural/abnormal because that it what the scriptures say. Have you not?

                1. livelonger profile image91
                  livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  They try every angle. They try the scriptural route until you point out that it does not unambiguously condemn homosexuality. Then they switch tactics and talk "natural law" which is also easily disprovable. Then they say it's disgusting until it becomes clear that most people are not obsessing about what gay people do in the bedroom. Then more outlandish claims, the kinds promulgated by Kirk Cameron, Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson,  that gays are causing the destruction of civilization, etc., start to surface out of desperation.

                  When you point out that Jesus did unambiguously condemn divorce and remarriage, calling it adultery, that's when they quietly slink out of the conversation. smile

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image62
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You're right to a point. I think the Bible does unambiguously condemn homosexuality and Jesus did unambiguously condemn divorce and remarriage, calling it adultery. I don't think anyone slinks away because you believe you had a gotcha moment, both homosexuals and adulterers can ask for forgiveness and be forgiven. The difference seems to be that you don't think you need to be forgiven but that the adulterer does. Who is judging whom?

                    1. livelonger profile image91
                      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      No, the Bible does not unambiguously condemn homosexuality, but certain translations do.

                      I'm not Christian, so, no, I don't think I need to be forgiven, but there are Christian gays, most of whom are just as repentant as straight remarried people who don't want to return to their first spouse as Jesus commanded. Do you put them on equal footing?

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm getting there, LL. The argument does seem to be going round in circles somewhat. smile

                2. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I said my Bible is ONE of the reasons Ms Thomas.

                  Not every reason.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, fair enough and your other reason is, what, functionality?

        2. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And you should start quoting where people are being judgemental.

          Where is Don sitting in judgement?

          Honestly, I think you are putting a lot of pushy notions on people, and that is being judgemental... just so you know.

          I would really like to see, especially, where Don said something so wrong.

          Any sentence you choose will suffice, if there is indeed one that is judgemental.

          It's a little saddening that it has turned to this.

          The point is they aren't a follower of Biblical Christian doctrines if they don't adhere to said doctrines.

          No one gives a rat what they do, but they can't do it and CORRECTLY claim they are following Biblical Christian principles in doing so.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you Vector 7, for definition of the word judgemental, I was however, aware of its definition before your lesson.

            Let me see, where is Don being judgemental? By putting herself in the position of judging gay men and women and suggesting that they are not natural. She is making judgements about them, that is judgementalism..

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Mr Crowson is a he Ms Thomas.

              And no, that is an observation.

              judgmental (adj) - Bing Dictionary
              judg·men·tal
              [ juj mént'l ]   
              Audio player

                  tending to criticize: tending to judge or criticize the conduct of other people

              Synonyms: critical, hypercritical, condemnatory, negative, disapproving, disparaging, pejorative

              Bing Dictionary

              He stated his observation regarding the topic to be scientific, meaning he subtracted his personal beliefs for a moment to come to an unbiased and clearly unmotivated conclusion. And of course he believes his opinion is correct. You believe yours is correct as well. And you accused me of being an addict because my opinion differs from yours.

              He states the Bible calls it lust very clearly. If the question involves Christianity it involves the Bible, and the judge of Christianity wrote the Bible and is therefore the guiding principle for Christians.

              No one cares, personally, what you do, or anyone else, but saying "we can't say anything is wrong" is silly. Just because you believe something opposite we do does not make us hateful, or judgemental. The Holy Bible is the standard, and we are not judging anyone personally, but stating what it says.

              Rectums are not, by nature, used as vaginas.

              Female animals, by nature, aren't aroused by females.

              Nor are the parts, human or animal, functionally compatible.

              This is the observation, and if you don't personally like it it doesn't matter. It's an obvious and truthful conclusion.

              I'm not hateful, and am not telling anyone what they should or should not believe, but you trying to say that non-functionality is normal and being upset because we say otherwise is getting quite silly.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My apologies to Don for referring to him as a woman. My rather poor eyesight can not make out the images from avatars too well.

                There you go again offering lessons in the meaning of judgementalism. Both you and Don have been critical, disapproving, condemnatory, negative and perjorative in respect of gay people. So much so, that Don actually suggested that he was not required to respect  gay people and catagorised them in a similar way to murderers, liars, thieves and adulterers. When you have decided that a particular group of people are unnatural and not normal and that you are not required to respect them. You are being judgemental. Your negative, perjorative, disapproving, condemnatory attitude towards gay people exemplifies the term judgemental quite well.

                He stated his observation regarding the topic to be scientific, meaning he subtracted his personal beliefs for a moment to come to an unbiased and clearly unmotivated conclusion

                Subtracting ones personal beliefs to come to any form of conclusion, can  not  be considered scientific in any way, shape or form. There's quite specific methodology that has to be employed before any conclusion can be considered scientific.Not just the absence of your personal beliefs/opinions. As as for unbiased. I'm sorry, now I think I need to provide a definition for you in relation to those two terms.

                of, pertaining to, or concerned with a science or the sciences.

                2.  scientific
                regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science.

                3.  scientific
                systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

                How can Paul's teaching or Don's interpretation of of his teachings possibly be referred to as scientific?

                Unbiased:


                1. (adj.) unbiased
                not biased or prejudiced; impartial.

                Etymology:  (1600–10)

                Definition of 'unbiased'    Princeton's WordNet

                1. (adj) indifferent, unbiased, unbiassed
                characterized by a lack of partiality
                "a properly indifferent jury"; "an unbiasgoted account of her family problems"

                2. (adj) unbiased, unbiassed
                without bias


                Definition of 'unbiased'    Webster Dictionary

                1. (adj) unbiased
                free from bias or prejudice; unprejudiced; impartial

                I'm afraid neither of your comments in respect of this matter can be referred to as unbiased or impartial. Opinions are exactly that, they are opinions. Observations and opinions are not the same thing. Look it up.

                Btw, I did not call you an addict, I suggested that you might have taken some mind altering substance, based on your post. That was my INTERPRETATION based  on what you had written.  Yet, you are outraged that someone could make such a comment, you find it offensive. How do you think gay men and women feel when they are referred to as "unnatural" "abnormal"? And yet, you have no qualms when it comes to your INTERPRETATION of the bible and using offensive language. Double standards, me thinks.

                Rectums are not, by nature, used as vaginas.

                And rightly so. Anal sex can be far more pleasurable than vaginal sex, but I guess you didn't fully understand Melissa's post with respect to the female anatomy and pleasure.

                Female animals, by nature, aren't aroused by females. How do you know this? Please share.


                When you are challenged regarding your own offensive comments, the topic then becomes, silly, to you. Again, double standards.

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "And rightly so. Anal sex can be far more pleasurable than vaginal sex..."

                  This is what disturbs me.

                  I don't care what you percieve as 'normal' but it certainly doesn't involve functionality standards...

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't understand how you can feel "disturbed" by what two consenting adults, who are no hurting anyone else, by the way, do?

              2. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Liars for jesus!!

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Another Mark Knowles mini-me.. lol

                  smile

      2. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "sex is for procreation only" got a bible verse?

        As far as I'm aware the bible does not state that sex is for procreation only, otherwise I would have only done it three times in my lifetime. Sex is to be enjoyed for the fun that it is. If I lust after my wife, is that sin?

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is very silly, and I will not entertain it.

          If I must address that then there are more issues needing to be touched on first and I'm not beginning down that road.

          It may not be meant for 'procreation only', but it certainly isn't meant for 'fun only'.

          Sure your opinion differs, but I'm happy at leaving it at that as many people have issues with my Biblical devotion.

      3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @ Don Crowson.

        Does not nature tell you that sex is for procreation only

        No, nature does not tell me this.

        Paul uses the argument in Romans 1 that Gay and Lesbian sex are unatural.  Now that is a scientific observation 

        That is not a scientific observation, that is yours and Paul's observation. There's a massive difference.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Honestly folks, I have never had sex for the purpose of procreation.  It's always been for the fun of it.  Just occasionally it's been accompanied by quite a bit of lust, but never at the expense of the other person's welfare and his sense of self-worth.  Without the mutual trust and sharing of the enjoyment it would all be completely worthless.

          If, as Vector7 says, the god he worships and whom he believes wrote the bible, loves us, would he be against us having a bit of fun?

          Our world is becoming over-populated with humans.  We are ransacking the earth with pollution, decimating its resources, because we are so good at procreation and preserving ourselves against disease and famine, etc.  Same-gender relationships are the way to go.  This will allow us to have our fun; live in meaningful relationships; support each other and our communities. All without further increasing the population.

          While heterosexual ("normal") people continue to do their christian duty and procreate, we gays can support them with love and encouragement.

          A happy case of "co-habituating," if you ask me.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Bible states what it states, and does so clearly.

            If you don't believe in the Bible then so be it, but it is clear cut about it's position on homosexuality.

            If you don't like it, fine, follow whatever you want.

            How many times I have to say we don't care what you do personally, as everyone is judged by God alone, not us.

            But don't expect for us to change our statement that the Bible states in God's eyes it is wrong.

            That will not change. I'm not being judgemental.

            Take it up with the creator.

            If you don't believe in Him then do what you want and leave us to believe until we both die and find out personally.

            I didn't say anyone had to do anything. I said God said it.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            smile

        2. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Males_Anas_platyrhynchos_2_.jpg/800px-Males_Anas_platyrhynchos_2_.jpg
          May be Paul forgot to tell animals!! So much for natural

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a scientific observation, Jomin? lol

    31. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

      Anus... The girlfriends other vagina...